Eric BlairTOP 1000 COMMENTATEURSVOIX VINE le 27 mars 2010
Un livre intéressant sur la vie d'Anatoli Boukreev, qui est surtout un plaidoyer sur son rôle dans le tragique accident de 1996. Mis en cause par Jon (corrigé) Krakauer dans son best seller sur cette même tragédie, Boukreev présente sa vision de l'expédition et de sa place dans le sauvetage des membres de sa cordée. La démonstration apparaît convaincante. Au passage c'est aussi à une critique des dérives de l'alpinisme commercial qu'il se livre. Boukreev est décédé quelques années plus tard emporté par une avalanche.
A noter, R Messner, dans une interview disponible sur youtube, considère que le portrait de Boukreev fait par Krakauer est réaliste. A mon sens, cela n'enlève rien à l'argumentation de Boukreev. En revanche, cela met en relief la différence de conception et de pratique qui peuvent exister entre un alpiniste professionnel, formé à l'école russe, et un journaliste alpiniste, formé à l'américaine. Boukreev n'était ni un guide professionnel, ni un sherpa.
Pour ceux qui aime la montagne, et qui ont vu le téléfilm (qui n'était pas bon). Le livre explique comment Boukreev voyait les choses contrairement à Jon Krakauer, journaliste participant à l'expédition qui le critiquait...
il faut lire les deux versions et franchement, un très bon livre !
Commentaires client les plus utiles sur Amazon.com (beta)
201 internautes sur 211 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
Read Both, Then Decide for Yourself19 février 2000
- Publié sur Amazon.com
The debate that still rages over the relative credibility of the various books written about the 1996 Everest disaster is remarkable both for its intensity and its longevity. The fact that people are still arguing passionately about what happened nearly four years ago is kind of mind boggling. I've been following the debate from the sidelines ever since the summer of 1996, and I read both "The Climb" (TC) and "Into Thin Air" (ITA) as soon as they came out. Since then I've read almost all the other books about the tragedy as well. And recently I read the new expanded 1999 paperback editions of TC and ITA, each of which has been revised throughout, and each of which has a lengthy new postscript that answers charges made by the other book. If you have more than a passing interest in Everst 96, you will want to read both these new editions, even if, like me, you already read the first editions. The new dueling postscripts are mandatory reading if you want to have a better understanding of what happened. In my opinion, the truth lies somewhere betweeen the Krakauer account and the Boukreev/DeWalt account, although I think ITA is by far the better (and more believable) book. You, however, might feel differently. Read both new editions and decide for yourself. All of the different Everest books offer slightly different versions of the same events. This probably shouldn't surprise anybody, considering the effects of altitude and extreme stress on memory. I generally give Krakauer the benefit of the doubt over the other books, though, because he was the only author who took detailed notes while he was on the mountain (a widely respected reporter and mountaineer, he was sent to Everest specifically to document the 1996 climbing season). Krakauer was also the only one of the Everest authors who took the time to interview virtually all the major and minor players in the tragedy, so his book has a thoroughness that is lacking in the other Everest books. The other books, including TC, will be much easier to follow if you've read ITA first. ITA provides crucial background that's missing from the other books, and seems carefully researched and relatively balanced in a way the other books do not. Which is not to say that ITA isn't flawed. Krakauer wrote it when he was still greatly troubled by the tragedy, and the book clearly shows his raw emotional state. This gave ITA much of its stunning literary power (it is incredibly riveting to read!) but it also probably skewed Krakauer's objectivity. I think maybe he wrote more harshly about Sandy Hill Pittman and Boukreev than was necessary. One thing that struck me is that ITA and TC are actually in agreement about most major points. ABout the only points where they diverge seriously is over the wisdom of guiding without oxygen, and whether or not Boukreev had permission from Fischer to descend ahead of his clients. On this latter point, Krakauer makes a pretty convincing argument that Boukreev didn't have permission, but I think he was wrong not to give Boukreev the benefit of the doubt. I am prepared to take Boukreev's word on this one, despite plausible evidence to the contrary. Ultimately it's not really that improtant whether Boukreev asked permission or not before he went down. It probably wasn't such a wise idea, with or without permission, but Boukreev later more than made up for it by saving the lvies of Pittman and Charlotte Fox. So I think Krakauer was wrong to make a bid deal about this. But DeWalt makes an even bigger deal about this same issue, and thereby reveals himself to be an overly zealous advocate. TC barely even pretends to be balanced or even-handed. DeWalt writes in the style of a foaming-at-the-mouth defense attorney, less concerned with the truth than winning an acquittal for his client. He makes use of bombast and self-righteous indignation to appeal to his readers on an emotional level--the journalistic equivalent of "If the glove does not fit, you must acquit!" DeWalt presents the facts very selectively, and occasionally twists them outright, in order to build the strongest case he possibly can, hoping to make Boukreev look infallible and Krakauer look like a liar. The problem is, it's not a particularly believable strategy if you stop and consider everything logically, without emotion. Boukreev is portrayed as a hero in both books (albeit an imperfect hero in ITA). Like other reviewers here, however, I thought DeWalt's overstated advocacy in TC actually did more to hurt Boukreev than help him. Krakauer correctly points out that DeWalt was surprisingly careless with his research and fact checking. Plus, DeWalt doesn't have much natural talent as a writer (to put it charitably), which also hurts Boukreev's cause. I wholeheartedly agree with those other reviewers who wish Boukreev had chosen a more skilful and scrupulous author to tell his story for him. As I said, however, these are simply my opinions. I urge you to read both books for yourself and make up your own mind.
88 internautes sur 95 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
Good rebuttal to Krakauer's "Into Thin Air"10 juin 1999
Alain C. Dewitt
- Publié sur Amazon.com
Anatoli Boukreev, one of the guides on Scott Fischer's ill-fated 1996 Mountain Madness Everest expedition, feeling much maligned by Jon Krakauer's article, and subsequent best-seller, "Into Thin Air" (ITA), sets out to set the record straight in "The Climb: Tragic Ambitions on Everest" (TC). While ITA is a first-person account, TC is written from a third person POV, with long passages of Boukreev recounting the events and his impressions of the events of May 1996 (translated from Russian). What comes through most is Boukreev's wish to clear his name. Having read both books, I believe that Mr. Boukreev has accomplished his goal. He did save several clients of Fischer's expedition and assisted several of the climbers from Rob Hall's Adventure Consultants expedition. Although he was not able to rescue Scott Fischer, neither were Lopsang Jangbu Sherpa or Ed Viesturs and Todd Burleson. It seems clear that Fischer succumbed to high-altitude cerebral edema. What is most amazing is how lucky the Mountain Madness expedition was. The early sections recounts the logistical problems the team faced, including problems obtaining adequate supplies of oxygen, and the toll they must have taken on Fischer. However, the only casualty of the Mountain Madness expedition was Fischer himself. In contrast, Adventure Consultants lost their leader, Hall, guide Andy Harris, and clients Doug Hansen and Yasuko Namba. In terms of readability, I believe ITA's first-person view makes it a more gripping account. Boukreev's book is too obvious an attempt to refute Krakauer. (The article Krakauer initially wrote for "Outside" must have been more critical than the book because I don't recall the latter particularly assigning blame to Boukreev.) As I said earlier, I believe Boukreev did everything within his power to prevent the disaster, and to assist other climbers, but through the book he comes across as more detached; less involved than Krakauer, who makes it clear at the end of ITA that he has unanswered questions about his own role in the events of May 1996. I did enjoy learning about Boukreev himself. He is an interesting man, and an amazingly accomplished climber. I was particularly impressed by his efforts to bury the remains of Fischer and Namba, who he felt responsible for since he was unable to save them. I would have enjoyed more biographical material about him.
111 internautes sur 124 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
AIN'T NO MOUNTAIN HIGH ENOUGH...30 juillet 2000
- Publié sur Amazon.com
This is the story about the 1996 Everest tragedy told from the perspective of Anatoli Boukreev, who was one of the guides on the ill-fated Mountain Madness expedition. It is written almost as a rebuttal to the perceived criticism by Jon Krakauer (Into Thin Air) of Boukreev's actions on that ill-fated Everest climb.
This is a poorly written account that is oftentimes confusing. It has none of the clarity of prose found in Krakauer's "Into Thin Air". It is, however, an important chronicle from someone who was there on Everest, and who had a pivotal role in the tragic events. Boukreev provides an insider's view of the Mountain Madness expedition itself and of the preparations which go into such a journey. It is packed with many interesting details which will delight Everest junkies.
Whether Boukreev's actions on the mountain were irresponsible, in that he did not use supplementary oxygen to summit and immediately returned to camp after reaching the summit, rather than remain with the expedition's clients, or whether he was just following the orders of the expedition leader, Scott Fisher, who himself died on Everest, is an issue which will long be debated in mountaineering circles. There is no doubt, however, that Boukreev did, in fact, single handedly rescue three of the climbers during a raging blizzard; climbers who without his intervention would have died. Given the extreme weather conditions, his foray up the mountain to rescue climbers is nothing less than heroic.
Boukreev's is an important voice in the Everest annals, more so now that his voice has been silenced. On Christmas day, 1997, Boukreev died in an avalanche on Annapurna. RIP.
22 internautes sur 22 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
Mountain Man20 décembre 2000
- Publié sur Amazon.com
This book is Anatoli Boukreev's rebuttal of Jon Krakauer's criticism of Boukreev's actions on May 10, 1996, when three teams attempted to summit Everest. Krakauer's "Into Thin Air," of course, was the first of the two books published, was a best seller, and arguably is better written, and for these reasons many will consider Boukreev guilty until proved innocent. This book presents evidence, which I find compelling, that the actions of Boukreev that Krakauer criticizes were not irresponsible, rather that they were part of a plan, approved by Scott Fischer, to get Boukreev from the summit to Camp IV quickly to retrieve additional oxygen cannisters for the clients. Even before this book appeared, writer and mountineer Galen Rowell took to task Krakauer's treatment of Boukreev in his Wall Street Journal review of ITA. And in 1997, a year after the tragedy on Everest, The American Alpine Club's award committee unanimously voted to extend the Club's prestigious David A. Sowles Memorial Award to Boukreev. Clearly, there are many among the ranks of mountineers who do not share Krakauer's critical view of Boukreev's actions on Everest on May 10, 1996. Above I noted that ITA is arguably better written than this book. That is not to say that I found this book poorly written: I did not. Indeed I found this book provided more insight into the strategy of climbing a mountain such as Everest. Boukreev comes though in these pages as quietly heroic and a man truly happy only when climbing: a mountain man. I have no doubt that Rob Hall and Scott Fischer were of the same mould. For the most part, however, their clients - people ready and able to pony up the sixty-grand that it took to put themselves in harm's way and thus secure cocktail party bragging rights - are of a different mould altogether. Mountain man or dilettante, Everest embraces all. Bottom line: If the subject of the disastrous expeditions to Everest in May of 1996 interests you, then you should read both "Into Thin Air" and this book.
32 internautes sur 34 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
Essential for anyone interested in the 1996 Everest story14 septembre 1999
- Publié sur Amazon.com
Boukreev has a remarkable story to tell. Unfortunately, hepicked Dewalt to help him do it. Obviously written as a rebuttal toJon Krakauer's Into Thin Air, The Climb is equal parts fascinating and frustrating. The story is fascinating when it gives us a view from Boukreev's position as a climbing guide on Scott Fischer's 1996 Everest expedition. The sense that the expedition was thrown together in a somewhat haphazard fashion and the description of utter chaos on the mountain during and after the storm are conveyed quite effectively. Dewalt fails, however, in his attempt to advocate on behalf of Boukreev. His repeated criticism of Krakauer and defense of every step taken by Boukreev quickly becomes redundant and diminishes Dewalt's ability to effectively tell the story. Indeed, Dewalt rushes past background information and detail to such an extent that the reader (particulary those not familiar with descriptions of Everest and the surrounding area) would be well advised to read the much better written Into Thin Air first in order to fully understand what's going on in The Climb. Ultimately, Dewalt does Boukreev a disservice by his insistent advocacy. He would have been better served if he had simply told Boukreev's remarkable story and let the readers decide issues of right and wrong. In the end, Krakauer's fairy well supported criticsm of Boukreev doesn't need this much rebuttal. What Boukreev is able to show is that Krakauer's concerns, while possibly justified, may have made little difference on summit day. Once certain questionable decisions had been made, Boukreev proved himself to be a hero, with more courage and physical ability than anyone else on the mountain, by far. Fischer, Hall and the others died for a number of reasons, most directly because Fischer didn't have the experience or organizational ability to mount a guided Everest expedition and because the very experienced Hall ignored his own critcally important rules on summit day. Boukreev should be remembered as the courageous hero and incredible athlete he was (the "Michael Jordan" of mountain climbing) and Krakauer, whose writing and analysis far outshines Dewalt's, shouldn't waste his time responding to Dewalt's crticisms.