Ads skipped

Reinhold Messner on the Jon Krakauer/Anitoli Boukreev Everest Contoversy

518K views · Feb 23, 2013 · Entertainment

John Meek

693 subscribers

Comments · 1.6K

@propjoe1060 · 4 years ago
Boukreev is a legend. Many people owe him their lives. Hope there's mountains for him to climb in heaven!
212
@MrParisienWalkways · 7 years ago
“Mountains are not stadiums where I satisfy my ambition to achieve, they are the cathedrals where I practice my religion.” ANATOLI BOUKREEV
735
@pizzafrenzyman · 5 years ago
Both men made the correct decisions and lived to tell about it.
30
@billywall7752 · 4 years ago
I get the feeling Messner doesn’t think too highly of commercial mountain climbing guides.
105
@Gbos1404 · 13 years ago
Krakauer said that Boukreev was a hard-nosed guy. He didn't say the he WAS "uncaring:" he was just saying that he came off that way. He then goes on to describe the events during that night and I get the vibe from Krakauer that he viewed Boukreev as one of the heroes of the night.
138
@bluarcher5941 · 3 years ago
the interviewer should have known Rob Hall's name...poor preparation on his part.
134
@birnbaumimgarten8501 · 6 years ago
Boukreev has the attitude that you have to be trained enough to climb Everest. Scott Fischer and Rob Hall wanted to make it possible for anyone with enough money and experience with mountains. So I can understand Boukreev. He was able to save the people because he was trained enough. Unlike all the others. That's the big problem on Everest, that too many people want to storm the summit, even though they are not suitable for it. Neither mental nor physical.
473
@mikecarrato9253 · 11 years ago
I have read both books twice, and I agree with BOTH Boukreev and Krakauer, because they are both essentially saying the same things. Krakauer doesn't blame Boukreev -- in fact, he calls his actions "heroic". Krakauer does question Boukreev's approach to guiding, but clearly there WAS some disconnect between Boukreev and Fischer on Boukreev's role. I saw it as less "blaming Boukreev" and more "yet another example of miscommunication in the haze of altitude". Boukreev himself admits that Fischer was unhappy at times with his guiding, and he also admitted that his belief is to adapt "the man to the mountain", not "the mountain to the man". These admissions essentially validate much of what Krakauer wrote. So much went wrong on March 10, 1996, that there's plenty of "blame" to go around, if you choose to view it as blame. When I read Krakauer's book a second time, the only thing I would say Krakauer was openly criticizing was the commercialization of the mountain, something I think Boukreev would agree with. I read Krakauer's analysis of that night as a "what if..." analysis, not a "you should have..". And Krakauer does not exclude his own actions from this analysis -- he writes at length of his agonizing over not doing more. Boukreev (RIP) was a hero. I think Krakauer captured that. But Boukreev was also human, and he made mistakes. I believe his mistakes were primarily in communication, and under normal circumstances (even "Everest normal") they would not have caused any problem. But on that night, when everything went wrong, even the slightest misstep had tragic consequences.
805
@whatsitgoingtobetheneh · 3 years ago
I'm aviation, the study of "human factors" began as a response to the question of why a typically excellent mechanic made a mistake that led to a consequential incident. For those of you who have read Into Thin Air or The Climb, take a look at these 12 human factors and consider how many apply to the 1996 Everest tragedy: 1. Lack of communication 2. Distraction 3. Lack of resources 4. Stress 5. Complacency 6. Lack of teamwork 7. Pressure 8. Lack of awareness 9. Lack of knowledge 10. Fatigue 11. Lack of assertiveness 12. Norms Any one of these factors on its own is enough to hinder a person from operating at his or her best. Any one of these factors can lead to a typically excellent person making a consequential mistake. I think it's pointless to take sides on what happened that year on Everest. Some really smart, conscientious and capable people made catastrophic blunders that weren't typical of their character or reputation. Maybe that's what happens when you haven't slept properly, haven't eaten properly, don't have enough oxygen, feel guilty about not getting a client to the summit the year before, are under pressure to succeed in business, aren't all native English speakers, don't know how the weather will unfold, feel apprehensive about questioning the judgement of any of the guides, have a limited number of radios, don't know where the other members of your team are, etc, etc. It's easy to second guess these people while drinking a coffee sitting on your couch with your feet up. Sometimes you don't know what you'll do in a crisis until your actually in the moment.
18
@emilina-mae · 4 years ago (edited)
If I'm not a guide, and I'm at my literal limit, its not "assisting." It's adding more death. It's no more a "controversy" than not offering to jump back into the ocean if I'm not the Coast Guard and I've been treading water for days. You can't "blame" untrained, exhausted, unseasoned, unfamiliar climbers for not venturing back into a situation that absolutely would've killed them too.
104
@zubinb3 · 10 years ago
After having read both books (Krakauer and Boukreev), I feel that Krakauer has been a little harsh in his judgement of Boukreev's actions. Sometimes, an inability to communicate due to lack of language skills can be translated as aloofness. Boukreev did what was asked of him by his team leader and then performed beyond the call of duty. I have nothing but respect for this man.
382
@eduardoprestes1663 · 3 years ago
Boukreev was in the Scott Fischer's expedition, where nobody died, except Scott. The leader was the only one who died. The tragedy occurs with Rob Hall's expedition, with 4 deaths and 1 seriouly injured by frostbite. Mountain Madness and Broukreev's tatics worked well after all, exceot for Scott Fischer. But he had autonomy and made his own decisions. It was not Boukreev's fault.
97