Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Week 51, Midweek
When I emerged out of the building today the pregnant clouds, noticing my umbrella, decided not to bother, and then it got fairly warm.
Got a few grey hairs today trying to convey that while in Korea names are family name first, first name second, in the West it's the other way round: Christ Columbus, not Columbus Chris. You begin to realise how arbitrary just about everything is...what we consider good manners, good food, good ettiquete, good morals, good looks...when you;re immersed in a different culture.
The director kept wanting to speak to me and each time I misinterpreted that he was upset with something I was doing, and each time he was only trying to convey details about my apartment.
I went there after work and now that it is empty it looks really spacious. I intend to keep clutter out, and preserve the open-ness inside.
Had a nice dinner, pasta. Am organising two Korean guys for a double date with my colleagues. See how things go.
Am really tired so not gonna report anything else. Suffice it to say, good to have my own place now. Just need to get a nice desk and the odd pots and pans.
Will have to get some training sessions in this week too.
Got a few grey hairs today trying to convey that while in Korea names are family name first, first name second, in the West it's the other way round: Christ Columbus, not Columbus Chris. You begin to realise how arbitrary just about everything is...what we consider good manners, good food, good ettiquete, good morals, good looks...when you;re immersed in a different culture.
The director kept wanting to speak to me and each time I misinterpreted that he was upset with something I was doing, and each time he was only trying to convey details about my apartment.
I went there after work and now that it is empty it looks really spacious. I intend to keep clutter out, and preserve the open-ness inside.
Had a nice dinner, pasta. Am organising two Korean guys for a double date with my colleagues. See how things go.
Am really tired so not gonna report anything else. Suffice it to say, good to have my own place now. Just need to get a nice desk and the odd pots and pans.
Will have to get some training sessions in this week too.
Consumer Prices Up, Inflation on the Rise
By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer 22 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Consumer prices climbed by 0.5 percent in April, reflecting the biggest rise in energy prices in two years, along with more expensive air fares and food costs.
The increase in the consumer price index, the government's most closely watched inflation barometer, followed an even larger 0.6 percent advance in March, the
Labor Department reported Wednesday.
While the latest snapshot of consumer prices showed that inflation is on the rise, it also suggested that it is not on the brink of spiraling out of control.
Excluding energy and food prices, which can swing widely from month to month, "core" inflation was flat in April. That's a big improvement from March, when core inflation shot up by 0.4 percent, the largest advance in 2 1/2 years.
The flat reading on core inflation, which is closely monitored by the Fed, was the best showing since November 2003.
The inflation report is likely to keep the
Federal Reserve on its current path of modestly boosting short-term interest rates to keep prices in check. The Fed is expected to nudge up rates at its next meeting at the end of June and probably will continue that policy through much of this year, analysts say.
In an effort to combat inflation, the Federal Reserve has raised short-term interest rates eight times — each in quarter-point increments — since last June. The most recent increases, on May 3, left the Fed's key interest rate at 3 percent, the highest since the fall of 2001.
At their May meeting, Fed policy-makers said "pressures on inflation have picked up in recent months and pricing power is more evident," meaning companies are finding it somewhat easier to raise prices to customers.
The overall inflation reading of 0.5 percent in April was slightly higher than the 0.4 percent rise that economists were forecasting before the release of the CPI report. But the flat reading on core inflation was better than the 0.2 percent uptick that analysts were expecting.
The CPI report showed that in April, energy and food led the way in terms of price increases.
Energy prices jumped by 4.5 percent last month. That was up from a 4 percent gain in March and represented the biggest advance since March 2003.
In April, gasoline prices went up by 6.4 percent, natural gas prices rose 5.6 percent and fuel oil increased 4.6 percent.
Rising energy costs are being driven by surging oil prices.
Oil prices skyrocketed into record territory in March and hit a new peak of $57.27 a barrel at the beginning of April. Prices have since retreated and now hover above $48 a barrel. Economists, however, are hopeful that the moderation in oil prices — if maintained — might ease inflation pressures.
At the pump, the average price nationwide of regular gasoline was $2.16 a gallon last week, according to figures tracked by the Energy Department.
Food prices, meanwhile, marched up by 0.7 percent in April, compared with a more modest advance of 0.2 percent in March. Some economists believe that rising food costs are reflecting in part higher transportation costs due to expensive fuel prices.
Airfares climbed by 3.6 percent in April, the largest increase since June 2001, as carriers boosted prices to cover higher fuel costs.
WASHINGTON - Consumer prices climbed by 0.5 percent in April, reflecting the biggest rise in energy prices in two years, along with more expensive air fares and food costs.
The increase in the consumer price index, the government's most closely watched inflation barometer, followed an even larger 0.6 percent advance in March, the
Labor Department reported Wednesday.
While the latest snapshot of consumer prices showed that inflation is on the rise, it also suggested that it is not on the brink of spiraling out of control.
Excluding energy and food prices, which can swing widely from month to month, "core" inflation was flat in April. That's a big improvement from March, when core inflation shot up by 0.4 percent, the largest advance in 2 1/2 years.
The flat reading on core inflation, which is closely monitored by the Fed, was the best showing since November 2003.
The inflation report is likely to keep the
Federal Reserve on its current path of modestly boosting short-term interest rates to keep prices in check. The Fed is expected to nudge up rates at its next meeting at the end of June and probably will continue that policy through much of this year, analysts say.
In an effort to combat inflation, the Federal Reserve has raised short-term interest rates eight times — each in quarter-point increments — since last June. The most recent increases, on May 3, left the Fed's key interest rate at 3 percent, the highest since the fall of 2001.
At their May meeting, Fed policy-makers said "pressures on inflation have picked up in recent months and pricing power is more evident," meaning companies are finding it somewhat easier to raise prices to customers.
The overall inflation reading of 0.5 percent in April was slightly higher than the 0.4 percent rise that economists were forecasting before the release of the CPI report. But the flat reading on core inflation was better than the 0.2 percent uptick that analysts were expecting.
The CPI report showed that in April, energy and food led the way in terms of price increases.
Energy prices jumped by 4.5 percent last month. That was up from a 4 percent gain in March and represented the biggest advance since March 2003.
In April, gasoline prices went up by 6.4 percent, natural gas prices rose 5.6 percent and fuel oil increased 4.6 percent.
Rising energy costs are being driven by surging oil prices.
Oil prices skyrocketed into record territory in March and hit a new peak of $57.27 a barrel at the beginning of April. Prices have since retreated and now hover above $48 a barrel. Economists, however, are hopeful that the moderation in oil prices — if maintained — might ease inflation pressures.
At the pump, the average price nationwide of regular gasoline was $2.16 a gallon last week, according to figures tracked by the Energy Department.
Food prices, meanwhile, marched up by 0.7 percent in April, compared with a more modest advance of 0.2 percent in March. Some economists believe that rising food costs are reflecting in part higher transportation costs due to expensive fuel prices.
Airfares climbed by 3.6 percent in April, the largest increase since June 2001, as carriers boosted prices to cover higher fuel costs.
Hybrid Power
CHICAGO (AFP) - Toyota Motor will begin producing a hybrid version of its popular Camry mid-sized sedan at a plant in Kentucky in late 2006, the automaker said.
The hybrid version of the Camry -- perenially among the top-selling US automobiles -- will be the Japanese automaker's fifth gasoline-electric vehicle.
The move comes amid surging demand for Toyota's Prius, the leading hybrid car in the US.
"The continued success of Prius has demonstrated consumers' growing demand for hybrid vehicles," said Jim Press, executive vice president and chief operating officer of Toyota Motor Sales USA.
"Hybrid production in the US will allow us to be even more responsive to the desires of our customers."
Nationwide registrations for new hybrid vehicles rose to 83,153 in 2004 -- an 81 percent increase from 2003 according to RL Polk and Co.
The Toyota Prius recorded 53,761 new hybrid vehicle registrations in 2004, a 33 percent increase over 2003. The Prius occupies 64 percent of the hybrid market, a sizeable lead over the Honda Civic, which had 25,586 registrations and 31 percent market share, according to Polk.
Since the introduction of hybrid vehicles in 2000, the market has grown by more than 960 percent, Polk said.
The Camry hybrid joins a growing Toyota and Lexus hybrid lineup in the US, which currently includes the Prius and the Lexus RX sport utility vehicle, which reached dealerships in April. Next month, the Toyota Highlander Hybrid mid-size SUV will go on sale, and the 2007 Lexus GS sedan is targeted for sale in the spring of 2006.
The Camry will be built at the Georgetown, Kentucky plant which currently has the capacity to build 500,000 vehicles annually.
Toyota said a 10 million dollar investment in the plant's capacity will allow it to build approximately 48,000 Camry hybrid vehicles per year.
The Kentucky plant was established in 1986 and is Toyota's largest plant in North America. It employs approximately 7,000 people and currently builds the Camry, Avalon and Solara.
Idea For a South African Reality Show
Bushman
Loosely based on the reality show: Survivor
Elements: Summer December 1-25
Winter July 1-25
2 tribes of 15
TV audience votes off 1 in 3
Person voted off votes off 1 in 3
Both tribes vote off 1 in 3
Witchdoctor - has immunity
Waterbearer - allocated randomly and no one knows who it is
Basically divided into 5 intellectuals (technical experitise, ie botany, medicine, gastronomy grads, 5 'locals' (local knowledge), rogue elements (celebrity/recovering alchoholic/divorcee/advertising executive etc)
Based around the notion of youth vs experience, knowledge vs endurance, courage vs sensibility (7-8 students 19-29/7-8 older than 30, younger than 60)
Bushman - Endurance
Prizes: 4x4, Off the beaten track holidays, Outdoor Wear and R25 000 - R500 000.
Brands: Windhoek
Karroo
Toyota/Landrover
Cell C
Gu
Piz Buin
South African Airways
Bic
Coke/Powerade
Ricoffy
Scooter's Pizza
Ironman SA
Getaway
Men's Health
Shape
Virgin Active
Bar One
Polar
Challenges:
First to fall asleep (as measured by hr)
Most fish speared/caught in 1 hour
Most distance travelled on foot in 30 minutes by whole group
Food eating (wit)
Build a bridge with these materials
Poison dart
Storytelling - rock art map to Witchdoctor Charm
Camouflage - 6 sighters each, 2 seekers each, must get the reward without being seen/can neutralise through capture opposing member, but then neither can advance
Target Practise - bow and arrow
Build a Human trap (to capture team mate of other team)
MountainBike Race
Kleilat - opposite sides of riverbank, must knock over 1 animal totem each
First to make a rope, use it to get everyone across the water, tying it to a wooden post in the centre of the water. May not touch water.
Seek and Destroy - track and capture springhare in enclosed space.
stand on a post in the sun above river
balance beam
tracking
sending message using cave painting
food auctions
Locations:
Bushman Free State
Bushman Strandloper
Bushman Drakensberg
Bushman Botswana
Bushman Karoo
Bushman Tsitsikama
Bushman Namaqua
Bushman Ficksburg
Bushman Ladybrand
Bushman Orange River
Bushman Addo
Bushman West Coast
Bushman Table Mountain
Bushman Madagascar
Bushman Mozambique
Bushman Bushmanland
Loosely based on the reality show: Survivor
Elements: Summer December 1-25
Winter July 1-25
2 tribes of 15
TV audience votes off 1 in 3
Person voted off votes off 1 in 3
Both tribes vote off 1 in 3
Witchdoctor - has immunity
Waterbearer - allocated randomly and no one knows who it is
Basically divided into 5 intellectuals (technical experitise, ie botany, medicine, gastronomy grads, 5 'locals' (local knowledge), rogue elements (celebrity/recovering alchoholic/divorcee/advertising executive etc)
Based around the notion of youth vs experience, knowledge vs endurance, courage vs sensibility (7-8 students 19-29/7-8 older than 30, younger than 60)
Bushman - Endurance
Prizes: 4x4, Off the beaten track holidays, Outdoor Wear and R25 000 - R500 000.
Brands: Windhoek
Karroo
Toyota/Landrover
Cell C
Gu
Piz Buin
South African Airways
Bic
Coke/Powerade
Ricoffy
Scooter's Pizza
Ironman SA
Getaway
Men's Health
Shape
Virgin Active
Bar One
Polar
Challenges:
First to fall asleep (as measured by hr)
Most fish speared/caught in 1 hour
Most distance travelled on foot in 30 minutes by whole group
Food eating (wit)
Build a bridge with these materials
Poison dart
Storytelling - rock art map to Witchdoctor Charm
Camouflage - 6 sighters each, 2 seekers each, must get the reward without being seen/can neutralise through capture opposing member, but then neither can advance
Target Practise - bow and arrow
Build a Human trap (to capture team mate of other team)
MountainBike Race
Kleilat - opposite sides of riverbank, must knock over 1 animal totem each
First to make a rope, use it to get everyone across the water, tying it to a wooden post in the centre of the water. May not touch water.
Seek and Destroy - track and capture springhare in enclosed space.
stand on a post in the sun above river
balance beam
tracking
sending message using cave painting
food auctions
Locations:
Bushman Free State
Bushman Strandloper
Bushman Drakensberg
Bushman Botswana
Bushman Karoo
Bushman Tsitsikama
Bushman Namaqua
Bushman Ficksburg
Bushman Ladybrand
Bushman Orange River
Bushman Addo
Bushman West Coast
Bushman Table Mountain
Bushman Madagascar
Bushman Mozambique
Bushman Bushmanland
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Currencies And Oil
1.00 KRW = 0.00641281 ZAR
1 KRW = 0.00641281 ZAR 1 ZAR = 155.938 KRW (a few days ago 160 KRW)
$1 = R6.43 (a day or so ago R6.36)
Oil:$47.94
1 KRW = 0.00641281 ZAR 1 ZAR = 155.938 KRW (a few days ago 160 KRW)
$1 = R6.43 (a day or so ago R6.36)
Oil:$47.94
Wholesale Prices Rise on Expensive Energy
WASHINGTON - Wholesale prices rose by a hefty 0.6 percent in April � lifted by more expensive energy, cars and cigarettes, the government reported Tuesday. Industrial production, meanwhile, dropped.
Alan Greenspan and his colleagues will continue to push up short-term interest rates for much of this year to combat inflation.
Excluding energy and food prices, which can swing widely from month to month, "core" wholesale prices increased by 0.3 percent in April. That was up from a tiny 0.1 percent advance in March and represented the largest increase since a 0.7 percent spike in January.
The Federal Reserve, in another report, said that industrial production at the nation's factories, mines and utilities declined by 0.2 percent in April, after nudging up by just 0.1 percent in March. April's showing was the weakest since January.
Production at factories and mines were flat in April, while output at utilities dropped by 2.3 percent.
In other economic news, the Commerce Department reported that housing construction jumped by 11 percent in April, compared with a 17.6 percent drop reported in March. The advance in April increased the total number of housing units builders broke ground on to 2.038 million, on an annualized basis. That exceeded analysts' expectations.
The latest snapshot of inflation also surprised economists. Before the report was released, they were forecasting a 0.4 percent rise in overall wholesale prices and a 0.2 percent increase in "core" inflation.
Wanting to make sure inflation doesn't become a problem, the Federal Reserve has boosted short-term interest rates eight times � each in modest, quarter-point moves � since last June, when the Fed's campaign to tighten credit began.
At the Fed's most recent rate increase, on May 3, policy-makers said "pressures on inflation have picked up in recent months and pricing power is more evident," meaning companies are finding it somewhat easier to raise prices to customers.
In April, price increases were fairly broadbased, covering a variety of categories. Rising energy costs, however, once again led the way.
Energy prices in April rose by 2.1 percent, following an even bigger 3.3 percent rise in March.
Residential natural gas prices jumped by 6.6 percent in April, the biggest increase since March 2003. Also in April, gasoline prices went up 2.6 percent from the previous month and costs for liquefied petroleum gas, such as propane, rose by 2 percent. Prices for residential electric power and home-heating oil, however, declined in April.
Oil prices soared into record territory in March and hit a new peak of $57.27 a barrel at the beginning of April. Prices have since retreated and hover above $48 a barrel.
At the pump, the average price nationwide of regular gasoline was $2.16 a gallon last week, according to figures tracked by the Energy Department.
Elsewhere in the report: cigarette prices went up 1.2 percent in April, the largest increase since January. Passenger car prices rose 0.5 percent and prices for light motor trucks climbed 0.6 percent in April.
Food prices nudged up 0.1 percent in April, down from a 0.3 percent advance in March. Falling prices for dairy products and soft drinks helped to blunt rising prices for roasted coffee, fresh fruits and meat.
Krakauer vs Boukreev
I saw my Amazon review earlier this morning, of Into Thin Air. I wonder how many people will agree with my assessment. I went onto a 'Boukreev' forum and the majority of people seem to feel that Boukreev is 'the man', and that Krakauer is just a slick, excellent story teller, and a bit of spin doctor (and an egotist). I don't think it makes sense to get personal, it's just interesting to see how hardcore these guys are.
One of the bottom lines of 1996 Appears to be that there are limits when carrying oxygen, and these limits include how much you can carry.. Theoretically, if you are going to depend on the stuff, you make life a bit harder because you also have to carry the extra load, and then if you run out, you're in an even worse situation. I think there is a heck of a lot of wisdom in Broukeev's stated policy of not using the stuff if at all possible, but having some around if you need it. A policy of not allowing ascents up Everest when climbers are unable to do so without oxygen may work...except that it is unlikely. I think it is also a bit pointless, all this conjecture, because at the end of the way, men and women decide to risk their lives on the mountain, and if things don't work out, then they die. They take on that risk, and at ground level sensibilties exist that don't exist beyond 28 000. You can't recognise people, hear people, or think straight, so it's crazy to hold a court and decide who is guilt or who is to blame. The best is that previous tragedies can be used to guide ideas for future ascents.
Interestingly Boukreev ran into similar trouble when he guided and led an Indonesian group. Here was a guy who said people who don't belong on a mountain (that need babysitting) shouldn't be there. People are entitled to modify how they do things based on their experience. He gave them rigorous training, and despite a huge amount of preparation, encountered deep snow (they were the first up that year) and also summited late in the day, and almost carbon copy repeat of the year before. This seems to indicate that the margin for error on Everest is such that slight weaknesses are blown up.
In 1996, climbers were still ascending with the approval of leaders till as late as 4pm. These lapses of judgement, on the part of each climber, whether leader or follower, are part of that risk that one faces by undertaking the ascent of High Mountains (that once on the mountain one's own mental mechanism works against you, compells you upward, when the most important ability is knowing when to turn back, or how to stay within a timeframe given the mental and physical wooziness).
Dispute (from Salon website)
This is a dispute, it's worth noting at the top, that has grown surprisingly ugly. One example: Boukreev's supporters are circulating a tape that, they allege, proves that Krakauer refused to help a climber in serious distress that day on Everest. Another example: Both sides hint that they have gone easy on one another in their books, and that the really damning stuff is still in their files. And there are unsubstantiated rumors of adultery, petty hatreds and drug use high on Everest that might have contributed, if only in small ways, to the death toll that day.
Because the tragedy is still so fresh, few are willing to go public with these kinds of details. But you get the impression that, if anyone still remembers Everest '96 in the year 2010, the tell-all memoirs and retrospectives will be rolling off the assembly line.
That said, the core document in the case against "Into Thin Air" is indisputably "The Climb," co-written by Boukreev, a flinty Russian climber who was the lead guide on Scott Fischer's team, and DeWalt, a little-known writer and investigative filmmaker. It is not a particularly impressive book, nor one that inspires deep confidence in its reportorial method. (Among other things, the book's co-authors did not, as Krakauer did, conduct independent interviews with either Mike Groom or Neal Beidleman, the only other professional guides who survived after being caught high on the mountain that day. DeWalt, whose account of the tragedy relies heavily on briefing tapes that were made shortly after the tragedy, says he tried vigorously to contact Beidleman.) But "The Climb" has become a rallying point for climbers and others who felt maligned by, or disappointed in, Krakauer's book.
Written mostly by DeWalt and interlaced with excerpts from interviews with Boukreev, "The Climb" often feels like it's been lashed together with duct tape. DeWalt didn't do his co-author any favors by interviewing him in English, instead of translating Boukreev's words from his native Russian. The climber's halting responses to DeWalt's questions tend to sound like garbled subtitles on a movie you'd probably want to flee. ("Yes, big strong wind outside, very cold, lots of problem come, and I upset with him in this situation.") Worse, "The Climb" was riddled with small errors -- misidentified photos, misinformation about where key bits of evidence about climber Andy Harris' mysterious demise were found -- not all of which have been fully corrected in the new paperback edition.
But "The Climb" has an unvarnished power that's very difficult to deny. Part of that power comes from the slow accumulation of detail about the journeyman climber's life in post-Soviet Russia. (At one point, Boukreev is so broke that he frets he will have to sell his ice ax in order to return home.) But the bigger part of that power -- and, unfortunately, the factor that will frustrate readers in search of a coherent, independent story -- derives from the fact that it's an angry book, written in direct response to Krakauer's account. As one climber has put it, it's a book that reads more like a legal document, a brief for the defense, than an attempt to tell a straightforward tale.
Boukreev is no longer around to defend "The Climb." But by all accounts he was puzzled and upset by his depiction in Krakauer's book and wanted to get his version on the record.
As anyone who's read "Into Thin Air" or other accounts of the Everest tragedy is aware, multiple errors in judgment -- some minor, some less so -- combined with the weather to cause the stunning death toll in May of 1996. Krakauer, to be sure, spreads the blame pretty widely, and doesn't spare himself. Among the questions he asks is: Why did savvy guides like Fischer and Hall allow clients to stay on the summit so late in the day? A generally accepted rule is that climbers who aren't within shouting distance of Everest's summit by 1 or 2 p.m. must be turned around in order to descend before nightfall. But many climbers that day were on or near the summit as late as 4 p.m., shortly before the blizzard began to roll in. It's a question that, despite being hashed over in countless late-night discussions among climbers, continues to be a source of puzzlement.
The climber who comes off the least well in Krakauer's account, however, is probably Boukreev. Headstrong and taciturn, he was a difficult man to cozy up to -- a situation that was exacerbated by his fractured English. Boukreev didn't believe in coddling weak clients. He was hired, he says in "The Climb," "to prepare the mountain for the people instead of the other way around." Unlike many of the other Everest guides, Boukreev tended to hustle quickly up and down the mountain, fixing ropes and performing other duties, while only rarely attending to individual climbers or delivering much-needed pep talks. "He just wasn't a team player," says Dale Kruse, a fellow climber on Fischer's expedition, in "Into Thin Air."
Boukreev and DeWalt don't quibble much with this interpretation; they merely note that Fischer had a second guide, Beidleman, who could make nice with the paying clients. What Boukreev and DeWalt do take issue with is Krakauer's interpretation of Boukreev's decisions once things began to get hairy that day on Everest.
Many of the facts about Boukreev's actions on May 10 aren't really in dispute. Both sides agree that, with Fisher's assent, Boukreev climbed without supplemental oxygen -- an unorthodox decision for a guide, who needs to be strong enough not merely to get to the summit but to aid climbers who might be in distress. Both sides agree, too, that, before the storm approached, Boukreev sped down the mountain alone, hours ahead of his clients. ("Indeed, by 5:00 p.m., while his teammates were still struggling through the clouds at 28,000 feet," Krakauer writes, "Boukreev was already in his tent resting and drinking tea.") Both sides further agree that, after returning alone to Camp Four, Boukreev acted heroically in returning back out into the storm to rescue three other climbers who were stranded a short distance away on the South Col.
In "Into Thin Air," Krakauer portrays Boukreev's decision to climb without oxygen as a grievous mistake -- one that forced him, because of the severe cold, to descend rapidly instead of being able to wait for clients on the summit. He provides Boukreev's rationale for his quick descent in the form of an interview the Russian climber gave to Men's Journal:
"I stayed [on the summit] for about an hour ... It is very cold, naturally, it takes your strength ... My position was that I would not be good if I stood around freezing, waiting. I would be more useful if I returned to Camp Four in order to be able to take oxygen up to the returning climbers or to go up to help them if some became weak during the descent."
An unnamed climber from Fischer's team, quoted in "Into Thin Air," characterizes Boukreev's actions somewhat differently. Boukreev, this climber says, "cut and ran." Krakauer, too, is suspicious of Boukreev's motives, and he points out what he calls a "serious flaw" in the "return to get tea" argument. Since Boukreev was not issued a radio on the climb -- another mistake on Fischer's part -- how could he have known if anyone left above him needed his help?
"I certainly don't think Anatoli caused the tragedy," Krakauer says. He claims that he tried to be as fair as possible to Boukreev in "Into Thin Air," and to fully credit him for his late-day heroism, particularly since he felt that he had perhaps been too hard on the Russian climber in his earlier Outside article. But Krakauer doesn't back off his criticisms. Among the facts he hasn't printed, he says, is that many of the Sherpas on the trip, some of whom were treated poorly by Boukreev, do blame him for many of the deaths.
To Boukreev and DeWalt, however, few things seemed fair about "Into Thin Air." For Boukreev, this spat had entered Hemingway territory -- both his honor and his manhood had been publicly called into question. In "The Climb," they make a number of responses to Krakauer's book. Among other things, they reemphasize that Boukreev, who had already summited several 8,000 meter peaks without oxygen and was among the strongest climbers alive, was given permission to climb without O's, as climbers like to call the bottles of compressed gas. More important, though, they hotly dispute Krakauer's assertion that Boukreev acted unilaterally when he descended down to Camp Four in front of his clients.
This is the point where, in the case of Boukreev vs. Krakauer, all paths diverge.
Here's Krakauer's version: In "Into Thin Air," he recounts a conversation that took place between Boukreev and Fischer during the mid-afternoon on May 10 above the Hillary Step, a notoriously treacherous ridge just below the summit. A tired-looking Fischer was heading up the mountain; Krakauer, Boukreev and two other climbers, Andy Harris and Martin Adams, were heading down.
According to Krakauer, a short conversation ensued. "As Adams remembered the conversation, Boukreev told Fischer, 'I am going down with Martin [Adams].'" Fischer assented, and continued trudging up the mountain. It would become clear, however, that Boukreev did not stick with Adams as he claimed he would -- instead he raced down without him.
In the aftermath of the tragedy, however, Boukreev said that he'd had a second conversation with Fischer above the Hillary Step after the other climbers had left. In this conversation, according to Boukreev, Fischer agreed that Boukreev should descend ahead of all of his teammates in order to prepare tea and gather oxygen in order to bring them to anyone who needed them.
Krakauer is convinced -- or at least, he says, he is "98 percent convinced" -- that Boukreev invented this second conversation. "This was a new story," he says. "Scott [Fischer] was walking away -- he didn't wait around."
Besides Krakauer, the only other living climber who was there for the first -- and perhaps the only -- part of that conversation is Adams, a retired Wall Street bond trader who now spends most of his time in the Rocky Mountains. Along with DeWalt and Sandy Hill Pittman, a wealthy Manhattan socialite and climber who also came off poorly in "Into Thin Air," Adams is among Krakauer's harshest critics.
Adams acknowledges that he doesn't know if the conversation took place, but argues that "it is impossible for Jon to say that there was no second conversation. It may not have happened while he was up there. It may have happened later. But I wasn't there, and he wasn't there, either."
For his part, Krakauer says Adams has changed his story. Krakauer supplied Salon with typed notes from an untaped telephone interview with Adams in July 1996. In those notes, Adams says that Boukreev's "memory of the conversation between him and Scott ... is somewhat different than mine. As I remember it, he told Scott he was going to go down with me. He says he told Scott that he was going down ahead of everybody. But we talked through our differences and reached some agreement."
Adams doesn't recollect making those comments. "I think Krakauer misquoted me, and took things I said out of context," he says. Krakauer replies that he'd stake his professional reputation on their veracity.
Adams also implies that Krakauer had good reason to vilify Boukreev. "Krakauer couldn't acknowledge Anatoli as the hero of this story," he says. "Because if Anatoli is the hero, who's going to get the book contract? Anatoli, not Jon."
Krakauer remains skeptical about the notion of a second conversation, but he is willing to concede the slight possibility it did indeed happen. "OK, let's say for the sake of argument I missed it," he says. "How does that change anything? Fischer was virtually comatose. Anatoli says to him, 'I'm going to go make tea.' Fischer was in no shape to be making decisions, and Anatoli should have known better." This was another example, Krakauer says, of Boukreev "blaming Fischer for his own bad decisions. Getting permission did not make it right."
The final wrinkle is that DeWalt claims in "The Climb" that there was another, earlier plan to have Boukreev descend the mountain ahead of clients. In the book he quotes a woman named Jane Bromet, a correspondent for Outside online, as saying that Fischer had discussed such a plan with her in the days before the climb. (In a letter to DeWalt after "The Climb" was published, Bromet disputed the quote -- she said her conversation with Fischer happened weeks, not days, before the climb, and that he never mentioned it again.) The Bromet quote now seems like a red herring; even DeWalt admits that if Fischer had mentioned such a plan, Boukreev was probably never made aware of it. Disgusted, Krakauer cites DeWalt's use of the quote as another example of what he calls "The Climb's" intellectual dishonesty. DeWalt replies that, by ignoring even the possibility of both plans, Krakauer abdicated his journalistic responsibility.
In any case, most mountaineers agree on two central points: A guide should, in general, remain with his clients; and Boukreev's failure to carry oxygen made it extremely difficult for him to do that. If Boukreev had carried oxygen, he would likely not have been forced to descend early, and might have been able to save more climbers.
Nick van der Leek:
In the end it is simply a case that each is responsible for his or her own life, and experts around them may provide assistance, and yes, at that vital time when their lives are also at risk, as a result of an array of reasons, they may not provide the best advice. Climbers should realise their greatest asset is their own control over themselves, and how they exert it. That is obviously what the mountain tests, whether we accept it's terms, or enforce our own, even unto death.
Here's more:
While it's likely that no one will ever know for certain whether that second conversation happened -- whether Fischer told Boukreev to flee down the mountain before his teammates -- that fact hasn't prevented many climbers who were on Everest that day (and some who weren't) from taking sides on the issue of Boukreev's actions.
Most of the big names have fallen in behind Krakauer. These include David Breashears, an accomplished climber and filmmaker who was on Everest that day making an IMAX film. Breashears and his crew were among many climbers who acted heroically on May 10; in his case, his crew immediately set back their own summit plans -- and threw a $5 million film into jeopardy -- in order to offer aid, including valuable oxygen canisters, to climbers in distress. Breashears refuses to criticize Boukreev directly, but he manages to make his beliefs clear.
"I think Jon's book is a very honest account," Breashears says. "He is a good reporter, trained at gathering facts." Krakauer's book is "tough," he adds. "It tells a lot of hard truths. Climbers are not a group of people who are used to internal criticism. We're tribal. Jon wrote about things that people were uncomfortable hearing about, and that was traumatic for some."
Two other climbers who back Krakauer's account are Neil Beidleman, who was a guide alongside Boukreev on May 10, and Beck Weathers, who climbed on Hall's New Zealand team. Beidleman declined to speak to Salon on the record, but he made it abundantly clear that he disputes many of Boukreev's assertions. Weathers concurs: "In general, I agree with the substance of the points Jon raises about Anatoli," he says.
Peter Hackett, one of the world's preeminent experts on the effects of high-altitude climbing -- he lived in Nepal for six years, climbed Everest solo in 1981 and helped found the Himalayan Rescue Association -- is another critic of Boukreev's actions. "I think it's unwise for a guide to climb without oxygen," he says. "You've got to be at optimum levels. If there's a crisis, people without oxygen are much more susceptible to cold, hypothermia, frostbite. You can't spend time waiting for others. You've got to keep moving."
Hackett says he told the same thing to an assistant of DeWalt's when she called him for an interview, but that his quotes did not end up in "The Climb." ("I interviewed a lot of people who weren't quoted in my book," DeWalt replies.) Hackett also points out that when Boukreev guided Everest again in 1997, the year after the disaster, he did indeed use oxygen. "He decided to change his style," Hackett says.
DeWalt is more than happy to direct journalists to climbers who see things very differently. He also points out that, in December 1997, Boukreev was given an award for his heroism on Everest by the country's preeminent professional climbing organization, the American Alpine Club.
Jim Wickwire, a climber and the author of a recent book titled "Addicted to Danger," chaired the five-member committee that bestowed the award on Boukreev. "We looked at all the information we could before making our decision," Wickwire says. "But we looked first and foremost at what Anatoli did that day. He went out into the storm three times before he brought back three climbers. We did not feel that what happened up to that point changed the analysis."
That explanation, some Boukreev critics argue, is like praising the arsonist for putting out the fire. Krakauer says, "Why was Anatoli the only person to go back out? He may have been fearless. But he was also pretty goddamn motivated. He was having tea when a lot of people died. It wouldn't have looked too good."
Krakauer sees low-level conspiracy in the Alpine Club award. "I've never been the darling of the American Alpine Club," he says, describing its members as "elitists" and "old farts" who like to tell other climbers what to do.
"The American Alpine Club used to piss the shit out of me in the 1970s, when I was just starting to climb," he says. "To climb in foreign countries, they demand you have sponsorship from them -- you'd be denied permission without it. It reminded me of one of the things I hated about organized sports; you had to have a coach, you had to cut your hair. With climbing it felt different. You could hitchhike to a mountain on your own ... it had an anarchic, counterculture quality. And here were these guys with clipboards telling you what you could or couldn't do."
A more compelling defender of Boukreev's actions on Everest is Sandy Hill Pittman, a paying member of Fisher's team and one of the climbers Boukreev dragged to safety on the evening of May 10. (Now divorced, she goes by her maiden name, Sandy Hill.) As most people who read "Into Thin Air" or other articles about the Everest climb are aware, Hill became a frequent target of satire shortly after the tragedy. Although she's an accomplished climber -- when she summited Everest in 1996, she became only the second woman to climb each of the "Seven Summits," the highest peaks on each continent -- her penchant for carting the appurtenances of her luxurious lifestyle (gourmet food, laptops, fashion magazines) along with her rankled hard-core climbers. "I wouldn't dream of leaving town without an ample supply of Dean & DeLuca's Near East Blend and my espresso maker," Hill burbled in one often-quoted dispatch to an NBC Web site.
Krakauer was fairly hard on Hill in "Into Thin Air." Among other things, he was critical of her desire to have expensive (and very heavy) electronic equipment hauled with her up the mountain, thus exhausting a Sherpa who should have been attending to more important matters. ("Sandy wasn't to blame for that," Krakauer says now. "Fischer is, for letting her climb with it. He wanted the publicity her online dispatches would provide.")
In the two years since the tragedy, Hill has kept a low profile and has rarely given interviews. She is now a graduate student in architectural preservation and restoration at Columbia.
Hill declines to talk about Krakauer's book, which she claims she has not read very closely. But she is keen to talk about Anatoli Boukreev. "I was a person he rescued," Hill says, "and so I really understand the magnitude of his effort. He and he alone came out. He said the others wouldn't come. He did try to muster support, and I envisioned him going tent-to-tent asking people to come out, and no one would." (Among the climbers who had returned to the tents at Camp Four by this point was Krakauer, who said he collapsed into a profound, exhausted sleep.)
"Things would have turned out very differently for me if Anatoli hadn't come back out. From my perspective, if Anatoli had done anything different that day -- even tied his shoelaces differently -- the outcome would have been different. I think that every single action he took that day was in the best interests of his clients."
Hill says she was saddened at the way that everything was "fouled and examined and spun" in the wake of the tragedy. "It made it very difficult to do the business of grieving for Scott Fischer. I'm very resentful. There was no respect paid to the grieving period. Everything was blown wide open and sensationalized."
Hill also defends Boukreev's decision not to use oxygen. "I understand his reasoning," she says. "Oxygen is fine, but when it runs out you hit a wall. Having experienced that myself, I can say that for me -- and I am not in Anatoli's league -- the false sense of security oxygen gives you can be a dangerous thing."
Peter Hackett, the high-altitude climbing expert who was critical of Boukreev's decision to climb without oxygen, concedes that Hill's point has some validity -- although he remains convinced that Everest guides shouldn't climb without it.
While Hill did indeed come perilously close to dying on Everest in 1996, the story of Beck Weathers is perhaps even more striking and poignant. Weathers was nearing the summit on May 10 when, due to a preexisting condition, his eyesight began to fail. Weathers, who was climbing with Krakauer on Hall's New Zealand team, was ordered by Hall to sit down on a balcony above the South Col for a while to see if his vision improved. If it didn't, he was to stay planted where he was and wait for Hall to retrieve him on the way down.
As it turned out, Weathers would sit and shiver on that balcony for several hours, until darkness was descending and conditions on the mountain had turned grim. By then he couldn't move on his own. Later that evening, a guide named Mike Groom would attach himself to Weathers (a procedure called short-roping) and help him further down the mountain. Along with a small group of other climbers, Groom and Weathers became lost on a lower portion of the South Col and couldn't go on. The group huddled together to keep warm, but when Boukreev showed up to help them later in the night, Weathers, along with climber Yasuko Namba, appeared to be dead. (Namba later did die.) Weathers was left behind, and spent a night utterly exposed to the elements. To the astonishment (and deep shame) of many of the climbers on the expedition, he regained consciousness the following morning and staggered into Camp Four.
Earlier, up higher on the mountain, before the bad weather set in, Krakauer had been among those who climbed past Weathers on the balcony. Some of Boukreev's defenders have accused Krakauer of not being completely honest about what transpired between the two. And there are indeed differences between Krakauer's account and a version Weathers later provided.
In "Into Thin Air," Krakauer writes that he implored Weathers to come down to Camp Four with him. "Come with me," Krakauer reports he said. "It will be at least another two or three hours before Rob shows up. I'll be your eyes. I'll get you down, no problem." Krakauer then berates himself for mentioning that Groom would be coming along shortly. Weathers elected to wait for Groom, and Krakauer admits he was secretly relieved. He was worried about being able to drag his own ass down the mountain.
In a taped lecture that Weathers gave not long ago -- a tape that has become a hot bootleg among the anti-Krakauer contingent -- Weathers offers a slightly different, if not entirely irreconcilable, version of this encounter. Here's a relevant excerpt:
It gets to be about 5 o'clock and I see a lone figure coming out of the what is now beginning to be a little bit of blowing snow and a little bit of dropping temperature ... and it's Jon Krakauer. Jon says, "Beck, what are you doing here?" And I tell him my sad little tale. And I said, "Jon, I don't think I can wait any longer. I think Rob's going to have to understand, but it's starting to go south on us. And I'm going to need somebody to act as my eyes. And it's not a big deal. We'll just go a little bit slow ..." And Jon was clearly not happy with this idea. His body language and ... his first reaction was to say, "Beck, I'm not a guide." I said, "I know that, Jon. But I can't see well enough to walk off of this thing." In all credit to Jon, I have no doubt that had I pushed the point with him, he would have done it. But he told me at the same time, you know, Mike Groom is 20 minutes behind. He has a radio. I said, "Not a problem, I'll wait for Mike."
In an interview with Salon, Weathers claims that Krakauer's account doesn't bother him. "There is nothing in Jon's book that offends me. He did say, 'I'm not a guide.' He did not say, 'I'm not a guide so I won't help you down the mountain.' I took it as him saying, 'I have no special skills.'"
He adds: "Anatoli Boukreev certainly did not play a role in getting me off the mountain. The only role he played was stepping over my body."
Krakauer responds by saying, "I don't get why [Boukreev's defenders] are making such a big deal about this. It's just another part of their effort to discredit me." Krakauer says he has no doubt that Weathers' description of his body language is correct, but he says he was more than willing to help him. He adds: "I didn't just tell Beck that I wasn't a guide -- I told him I didn't have any rope. And in order to get him down the mountain, he would have had to be short-roped to another climber. That's what Groom eventually did."
Strangely enough, Boukreev and Krakauer had a final, unexpected, encounter about a month before Boukreev's death on Annapurna. Boukreev was sitting on a panel discussion about climbing at the Banff Mountain Book Festival in Banff, Alberta, and Krakauer happened to be in the audience. Boukreev spent a good portion of the evening attacking Krakauer's book, and when question time rolled around Krakauer was the first in line. "Anatoli," Krakauer said, fuming, "I think your book is so dishonest." It's something Krakauer now regrets saying, calling it an "embarrassing mistake."
Afterward, however, Krakauer caught up with Boukreev and his girlfriend outside the building. "We talked for about a half hour," Krakauer says. "I admitted that my depiction of him in my original Outside article wasn't as balanced as it could have been. He admitted a few things, too. It wasn't exactly a rapprochement. We agreed to disagree about some things. But if he had only lived, I think we could be sorting this thing out."
SALON | Aug. 3, 1998
"Early in the trip, I thought Scott's [Fischer's] system was fucked, and it ended up being better than our system, and that shows you how little I know. I remember thinking Anatoli's this great strong guy, but he's terrible with people. He's never around -- he's always up front with his Sherpa. ... I thought they [the Mountain Madness expedition members] were looking for trouble. ... Some of us [on the Adventure Consultants team] were smug -- that our group was sort of the safest, that it was more conservatively guided. And we worried about Scott's group and his laissez-faire, let people do what they want. And, in the end, all Scott's clients survived. ... Anatoli is who he is. He's going to be always up front. And, as it happened, this time he was down, he just happened to be down and strong enough to save people when the time came." The member of the Adventure Consultants' team who offered this testimony within days of the Everest tragedy and before the media began to seriously hunger for someone to blame? Jon Krakauer.
In closing, I would like to suggest that Krakauer's motivation for continuing to apply creative candlepower to the subject of Anatoli Boukreev may, in part, be motivated by his desire to keep the spotlight from settling on a question that began to loom in the weeks after the Everest tragedy of 1996: Did Krakauer's presence on the Adventure Consultants expedition contribute to the tragedy that unfolded? That question, which has kicked around in pubs and at the crags for more than two years, surfaced three weeks ago in a more than credible forum, the 1998 edition of the American Alpine Journal. In that publication, mountaineer and writer Galen Rowell, who has met in Nepal with several of the players in the Everest tragedy and who favorably reviewed "Into Thin Air" for The Wall Street Journal, says in a review of "The Climb," "The reader senses that the presence of an Outside journalist as a client on the most fatal commercial Everest venture was no coincidence."
It is a matter worth considering, I think -- not for the purpose of placing blame -- but for inquiring into what it means to have a high-profile, participatory media presence in high-risk, extreme sports. Maybe there is something to learn in considering the question. Maybe there are lives to be saved.
SALON | Aug. 14, 1998
One of the bottom lines of 1996 Appears to be that there are limits when carrying oxygen, and these limits include how much you can carry.. Theoretically, if you are going to depend on the stuff, you make life a bit harder because you also have to carry the extra load, and then if you run out, you're in an even worse situation. I think there is a heck of a lot of wisdom in Broukeev's stated policy of not using the stuff if at all possible, but having some around if you need it. A policy of not allowing ascents up Everest when climbers are unable to do so without oxygen may work...except that it is unlikely. I think it is also a bit pointless, all this conjecture, because at the end of the way, men and women decide to risk their lives on the mountain, and if things don't work out, then they die. They take on that risk, and at ground level sensibilties exist that don't exist beyond 28 000. You can't recognise people, hear people, or think straight, so it's crazy to hold a court and decide who is guilt or who is to blame. The best is that previous tragedies can be used to guide ideas for future ascents.
Interestingly Boukreev ran into similar trouble when he guided and led an Indonesian group. Here was a guy who said people who don't belong on a mountain (that need babysitting) shouldn't be there. People are entitled to modify how they do things based on their experience. He gave them rigorous training, and despite a huge amount of preparation, encountered deep snow (they were the first up that year) and also summited late in the day, and almost carbon copy repeat of the year before. This seems to indicate that the margin for error on Everest is such that slight weaknesses are blown up.
In 1996, climbers were still ascending with the approval of leaders till as late as 4pm. These lapses of judgement, on the part of each climber, whether leader or follower, are part of that risk that one faces by undertaking the ascent of High Mountains (that once on the mountain one's own mental mechanism works against you, compells you upward, when the most important ability is knowing when to turn back, or how to stay within a timeframe given the mental and physical wooziness).
Dispute (from Salon website)
This is a dispute, it's worth noting at the top, that has grown surprisingly ugly. One example: Boukreev's supporters are circulating a tape that, they allege, proves that Krakauer refused to help a climber in serious distress that day on Everest. Another example: Both sides hint that they have gone easy on one another in their books, and that the really damning stuff is still in their files. And there are unsubstantiated rumors of adultery, petty hatreds and drug use high on Everest that might have contributed, if only in small ways, to the death toll that day.
Because the tragedy is still so fresh, few are willing to go public with these kinds of details. But you get the impression that, if anyone still remembers Everest '96 in the year 2010, the tell-all memoirs and retrospectives will be rolling off the assembly line.
That said, the core document in the case against "Into Thin Air" is indisputably "The Climb," co-written by Boukreev, a flinty Russian climber who was the lead guide on Scott Fischer's team, and DeWalt, a little-known writer and investigative filmmaker. It is not a particularly impressive book, nor one that inspires deep confidence in its reportorial method. (Among other things, the book's co-authors did not, as Krakauer did, conduct independent interviews with either Mike Groom or Neal Beidleman, the only other professional guides who survived after being caught high on the mountain that day. DeWalt, whose account of the tragedy relies heavily on briefing tapes that were made shortly after the tragedy, says he tried vigorously to contact Beidleman.) But "The Climb" has become a rallying point for climbers and others who felt maligned by, or disappointed in, Krakauer's book.
Written mostly by DeWalt and interlaced with excerpts from interviews with Boukreev, "The Climb" often feels like it's been lashed together with duct tape. DeWalt didn't do his co-author any favors by interviewing him in English, instead of translating Boukreev's words from his native Russian. The climber's halting responses to DeWalt's questions tend to sound like garbled subtitles on a movie you'd probably want to flee. ("Yes, big strong wind outside, very cold, lots of problem come, and I upset with him in this situation.") Worse, "The Climb" was riddled with small errors -- misidentified photos, misinformation about where key bits of evidence about climber Andy Harris' mysterious demise were found -- not all of which have been fully corrected in the new paperback edition.
But "The Climb" has an unvarnished power that's very difficult to deny. Part of that power comes from the slow accumulation of detail about the journeyman climber's life in post-Soviet Russia. (At one point, Boukreev is so broke that he frets he will have to sell his ice ax in order to return home.) But the bigger part of that power -- and, unfortunately, the factor that will frustrate readers in search of a coherent, independent story -- derives from the fact that it's an angry book, written in direct response to Krakauer's account. As one climber has put it, it's a book that reads more like a legal document, a brief for the defense, than an attempt to tell a straightforward tale.
Boukreev is no longer around to defend "The Climb." But by all accounts he was puzzled and upset by his depiction in Krakauer's book and wanted to get his version on the record.
As anyone who's read "Into Thin Air" or other accounts of the Everest tragedy is aware, multiple errors in judgment -- some minor, some less so -- combined with the weather to cause the stunning death toll in May of 1996. Krakauer, to be sure, spreads the blame pretty widely, and doesn't spare himself. Among the questions he asks is: Why did savvy guides like Fischer and Hall allow clients to stay on the summit so late in the day? A generally accepted rule is that climbers who aren't within shouting distance of Everest's summit by 1 or 2 p.m. must be turned around in order to descend before nightfall. But many climbers that day were on or near the summit as late as 4 p.m., shortly before the blizzard began to roll in. It's a question that, despite being hashed over in countless late-night discussions among climbers, continues to be a source of puzzlement.
The climber who comes off the least well in Krakauer's account, however, is probably Boukreev. Headstrong and taciturn, he was a difficult man to cozy up to -- a situation that was exacerbated by his fractured English. Boukreev didn't believe in coddling weak clients. He was hired, he says in "The Climb," "to prepare the mountain for the people instead of the other way around." Unlike many of the other Everest guides, Boukreev tended to hustle quickly up and down the mountain, fixing ropes and performing other duties, while only rarely attending to individual climbers or delivering much-needed pep talks. "He just wasn't a team player," says Dale Kruse, a fellow climber on Fischer's expedition, in "Into Thin Air."
Boukreev and DeWalt don't quibble much with this interpretation; they merely note that Fischer had a second guide, Beidleman, who could make nice with the paying clients. What Boukreev and DeWalt do take issue with is Krakauer's interpretation of Boukreev's decisions once things began to get hairy that day on Everest.
Many of the facts about Boukreev's actions on May 10 aren't really in dispute. Both sides agree that, with Fisher's assent, Boukreev climbed without supplemental oxygen -- an unorthodox decision for a guide, who needs to be strong enough not merely to get to the summit but to aid climbers who might be in distress. Both sides agree, too, that, before the storm approached, Boukreev sped down the mountain alone, hours ahead of his clients. ("Indeed, by 5:00 p.m., while his teammates were still struggling through the clouds at 28,000 feet," Krakauer writes, "Boukreev was already in his tent resting and drinking tea.") Both sides further agree that, after returning alone to Camp Four, Boukreev acted heroically in returning back out into the storm to rescue three other climbers who were stranded a short distance away on the South Col.
In "Into Thin Air," Krakauer portrays Boukreev's decision to climb without oxygen as a grievous mistake -- one that forced him, because of the severe cold, to descend rapidly instead of being able to wait for clients on the summit. He provides Boukreev's rationale for his quick descent in the form of an interview the Russian climber gave to Men's Journal:
"I stayed [on the summit] for about an hour ... It is very cold, naturally, it takes your strength ... My position was that I would not be good if I stood around freezing, waiting. I would be more useful if I returned to Camp Four in order to be able to take oxygen up to the returning climbers or to go up to help them if some became weak during the descent."
An unnamed climber from Fischer's team, quoted in "Into Thin Air," characterizes Boukreev's actions somewhat differently. Boukreev, this climber says, "cut and ran." Krakauer, too, is suspicious of Boukreev's motives, and he points out what he calls a "serious flaw" in the "return to get tea" argument. Since Boukreev was not issued a radio on the climb -- another mistake on Fischer's part -- how could he have known if anyone left above him needed his help?
"I certainly don't think Anatoli caused the tragedy," Krakauer says. He claims that he tried to be as fair as possible to Boukreev in "Into Thin Air," and to fully credit him for his late-day heroism, particularly since he felt that he had perhaps been too hard on the Russian climber in his earlier Outside article. But Krakauer doesn't back off his criticisms. Among the facts he hasn't printed, he says, is that many of the Sherpas on the trip, some of whom were treated poorly by Boukreev, do blame him for many of the deaths.
To Boukreev and DeWalt, however, few things seemed fair about "Into Thin Air." For Boukreev, this spat had entered Hemingway territory -- both his honor and his manhood had been publicly called into question. In "The Climb," they make a number of responses to Krakauer's book. Among other things, they reemphasize that Boukreev, who had already summited several 8,000 meter peaks without oxygen and was among the strongest climbers alive, was given permission to climb without O's, as climbers like to call the bottles of compressed gas. More important, though, they hotly dispute Krakauer's assertion that Boukreev acted unilaterally when he descended down to Camp Four in front of his clients.
This is the point where, in the case of Boukreev vs. Krakauer, all paths diverge.
Here's Krakauer's version: In "Into Thin Air," he recounts a conversation that took place between Boukreev and Fischer during the mid-afternoon on May 10 above the Hillary Step, a notoriously treacherous ridge just below the summit. A tired-looking Fischer was heading up the mountain; Krakauer, Boukreev and two other climbers, Andy Harris and Martin Adams, were heading down.
According to Krakauer, a short conversation ensued. "As Adams remembered the conversation, Boukreev told Fischer, 'I am going down with Martin [Adams].'" Fischer assented, and continued trudging up the mountain. It would become clear, however, that Boukreev did not stick with Adams as he claimed he would -- instead he raced down without him.
In the aftermath of the tragedy, however, Boukreev said that he'd had a second conversation with Fischer above the Hillary Step after the other climbers had left. In this conversation, according to Boukreev, Fischer agreed that Boukreev should descend ahead of all of his teammates in order to prepare tea and gather oxygen in order to bring them to anyone who needed them.
Krakauer is convinced -- or at least, he says, he is "98 percent convinced" -- that Boukreev invented this second conversation. "This was a new story," he says. "Scott [Fischer] was walking away -- he didn't wait around."
Besides Krakauer, the only other living climber who was there for the first -- and perhaps the only -- part of that conversation is Adams, a retired Wall Street bond trader who now spends most of his time in the Rocky Mountains. Along with DeWalt and Sandy Hill Pittman, a wealthy Manhattan socialite and climber who also came off poorly in "Into Thin Air," Adams is among Krakauer's harshest critics.
Adams acknowledges that he doesn't know if the conversation took place, but argues that "it is impossible for Jon to say that there was no second conversation. It may not have happened while he was up there. It may have happened later. But I wasn't there, and he wasn't there, either."
For his part, Krakauer says Adams has changed his story. Krakauer supplied Salon with typed notes from an untaped telephone interview with Adams in July 1996. In those notes, Adams says that Boukreev's "memory of the conversation between him and Scott ... is somewhat different than mine. As I remember it, he told Scott he was going to go down with me. He says he told Scott that he was going down ahead of everybody. But we talked through our differences and reached some agreement."
Adams doesn't recollect making those comments. "I think Krakauer misquoted me, and took things I said out of context," he says. Krakauer replies that he'd stake his professional reputation on their veracity.
Adams also implies that Krakauer had good reason to vilify Boukreev. "Krakauer couldn't acknowledge Anatoli as the hero of this story," he says. "Because if Anatoli is the hero, who's going to get the book contract? Anatoli, not Jon."
Krakauer remains skeptical about the notion of a second conversation, but he is willing to concede the slight possibility it did indeed happen. "OK, let's say for the sake of argument I missed it," he says. "How does that change anything? Fischer was virtually comatose. Anatoli says to him, 'I'm going to go make tea.' Fischer was in no shape to be making decisions, and Anatoli should have known better." This was another example, Krakauer says, of Boukreev "blaming Fischer for his own bad decisions. Getting permission did not make it right."
The final wrinkle is that DeWalt claims in "The Climb" that there was another, earlier plan to have Boukreev descend the mountain ahead of clients. In the book he quotes a woman named Jane Bromet, a correspondent for Outside online, as saying that Fischer had discussed such a plan with her in the days before the climb. (In a letter to DeWalt after "The Climb" was published, Bromet disputed the quote -- she said her conversation with Fischer happened weeks, not days, before the climb, and that he never mentioned it again.) The Bromet quote now seems like a red herring; even DeWalt admits that if Fischer had mentioned such a plan, Boukreev was probably never made aware of it. Disgusted, Krakauer cites DeWalt's use of the quote as another example of what he calls "The Climb's" intellectual dishonesty. DeWalt replies that, by ignoring even the possibility of both plans, Krakauer abdicated his journalistic responsibility.
In any case, most mountaineers agree on two central points: A guide should, in general, remain with his clients; and Boukreev's failure to carry oxygen made it extremely difficult for him to do that. If Boukreev had carried oxygen, he would likely not have been forced to descend early, and might have been able to save more climbers.
Nick van der Leek:
In the end it is simply a case that each is responsible for his or her own life, and experts around them may provide assistance, and yes, at that vital time when their lives are also at risk, as a result of an array of reasons, they may not provide the best advice. Climbers should realise their greatest asset is their own control over themselves, and how they exert it. That is obviously what the mountain tests, whether we accept it's terms, or enforce our own, even unto death.
Here's more:
While it's likely that no one will ever know for certain whether that second conversation happened -- whether Fischer told Boukreev to flee down the mountain before his teammates -- that fact hasn't prevented many climbers who were on Everest that day (and some who weren't) from taking sides on the issue of Boukreev's actions.
Most of the big names have fallen in behind Krakauer. These include David Breashears, an accomplished climber and filmmaker who was on Everest that day making an IMAX film. Breashears and his crew were among many climbers who acted heroically on May 10; in his case, his crew immediately set back their own summit plans -- and threw a $5 million film into jeopardy -- in order to offer aid, including valuable oxygen canisters, to climbers in distress. Breashears refuses to criticize Boukreev directly, but he manages to make his beliefs clear.
"I think Jon's book is a very honest account," Breashears says. "He is a good reporter, trained at gathering facts." Krakauer's book is "tough," he adds. "It tells a lot of hard truths. Climbers are not a group of people who are used to internal criticism. We're tribal. Jon wrote about things that people were uncomfortable hearing about, and that was traumatic for some."
Two other climbers who back Krakauer's account are Neil Beidleman, who was a guide alongside Boukreev on May 10, and Beck Weathers, who climbed on Hall's New Zealand team. Beidleman declined to speak to Salon on the record, but he made it abundantly clear that he disputes many of Boukreev's assertions. Weathers concurs: "In general, I agree with the substance of the points Jon raises about Anatoli," he says.
Peter Hackett, one of the world's preeminent experts on the effects of high-altitude climbing -- he lived in Nepal for six years, climbed Everest solo in 1981 and helped found the Himalayan Rescue Association -- is another critic of Boukreev's actions. "I think it's unwise for a guide to climb without oxygen," he says. "You've got to be at optimum levels. If there's a crisis, people without oxygen are much more susceptible to cold, hypothermia, frostbite. You can't spend time waiting for others. You've got to keep moving."
Hackett says he told the same thing to an assistant of DeWalt's when she called him for an interview, but that his quotes did not end up in "The Climb." ("I interviewed a lot of people who weren't quoted in my book," DeWalt replies.) Hackett also points out that when Boukreev guided Everest again in 1997, the year after the disaster, he did indeed use oxygen. "He decided to change his style," Hackett says.
DeWalt is more than happy to direct journalists to climbers who see things very differently. He also points out that, in December 1997, Boukreev was given an award for his heroism on Everest by the country's preeminent professional climbing organization, the American Alpine Club.
Jim Wickwire, a climber and the author of a recent book titled "Addicted to Danger," chaired the five-member committee that bestowed the award on Boukreev. "We looked at all the information we could before making our decision," Wickwire says. "But we looked first and foremost at what Anatoli did that day. He went out into the storm three times before he brought back three climbers. We did not feel that what happened up to that point changed the analysis."
That explanation, some Boukreev critics argue, is like praising the arsonist for putting out the fire. Krakauer says, "Why was Anatoli the only person to go back out? He may have been fearless. But he was also pretty goddamn motivated. He was having tea when a lot of people died. It wouldn't have looked too good."
Krakauer sees low-level conspiracy in the Alpine Club award. "I've never been the darling of the American Alpine Club," he says, describing its members as "elitists" and "old farts" who like to tell other climbers what to do.
"The American Alpine Club used to piss the shit out of me in the 1970s, when I was just starting to climb," he says. "To climb in foreign countries, they demand you have sponsorship from them -- you'd be denied permission without it. It reminded me of one of the things I hated about organized sports; you had to have a coach, you had to cut your hair. With climbing it felt different. You could hitchhike to a mountain on your own ... it had an anarchic, counterculture quality. And here were these guys with clipboards telling you what you could or couldn't do."
A more compelling defender of Boukreev's actions on Everest is Sandy Hill Pittman, a paying member of Fisher's team and one of the climbers Boukreev dragged to safety on the evening of May 10. (Now divorced, she goes by her maiden name, Sandy Hill.) As most people who read "Into Thin Air" or other articles about the Everest climb are aware, Hill became a frequent target of satire shortly after the tragedy. Although she's an accomplished climber -- when she summited Everest in 1996, she became only the second woman to climb each of the "Seven Summits," the highest peaks on each continent -- her penchant for carting the appurtenances of her luxurious lifestyle (gourmet food, laptops, fashion magazines) along with her rankled hard-core climbers. "I wouldn't dream of leaving town without an ample supply of Dean & DeLuca's Near East Blend and my espresso maker," Hill burbled in one often-quoted dispatch to an NBC Web site.
Krakauer was fairly hard on Hill in "Into Thin Air." Among other things, he was critical of her desire to have expensive (and very heavy) electronic equipment hauled with her up the mountain, thus exhausting a Sherpa who should have been attending to more important matters. ("Sandy wasn't to blame for that," Krakauer says now. "Fischer is, for letting her climb with it. He wanted the publicity her online dispatches would provide.")
In the two years since the tragedy, Hill has kept a low profile and has rarely given interviews. She is now a graduate student in architectural preservation and restoration at Columbia.
Hill declines to talk about Krakauer's book, which she claims she has not read very closely. But she is keen to talk about Anatoli Boukreev. "I was a person he rescued," Hill says, "and so I really understand the magnitude of his effort. He and he alone came out. He said the others wouldn't come. He did try to muster support, and I envisioned him going tent-to-tent asking people to come out, and no one would." (Among the climbers who had returned to the tents at Camp Four by this point was Krakauer, who said he collapsed into a profound, exhausted sleep.)
"Things would have turned out very differently for me if Anatoli hadn't come back out. From my perspective, if Anatoli had done anything different that day -- even tied his shoelaces differently -- the outcome would have been different. I think that every single action he took that day was in the best interests of his clients."
Hill says she was saddened at the way that everything was "fouled and examined and spun" in the wake of the tragedy. "It made it very difficult to do the business of grieving for Scott Fischer. I'm very resentful. There was no respect paid to the grieving period. Everything was blown wide open and sensationalized."
Hill also defends Boukreev's decision not to use oxygen. "I understand his reasoning," she says. "Oxygen is fine, but when it runs out you hit a wall. Having experienced that myself, I can say that for me -- and I am not in Anatoli's league -- the false sense of security oxygen gives you can be a dangerous thing."
Peter Hackett, the high-altitude climbing expert who was critical of Boukreev's decision to climb without oxygen, concedes that Hill's point has some validity -- although he remains convinced that Everest guides shouldn't climb without it.
While Hill did indeed come perilously close to dying on Everest in 1996, the story of Beck Weathers is perhaps even more striking and poignant. Weathers was nearing the summit on May 10 when, due to a preexisting condition, his eyesight began to fail. Weathers, who was climbing with Krakauer on Hall's New Zealand team, was ordered by Hall to sit down on a balcony above the South Col for a while to see if his vision improved. If it didn't, he was to stay planted where he was and wait for Hall to retrieve him on the way down.
As it turned out, Weathers would sit and shiver on that balcony for several hours, until darkness was descending and conditions on the mountain had turned grim. By then he couldn't move on his own. Later that evening, a guide named Mike Groom would attach himself to Weathers (a procedure called short-roping) and help him further down the mountain. Along with a small group of other climbers, Groom and Weathers became lost on a lower portion of the South Col and couldn't go on. The group huddled together to keep warm, but when Boukreev showed up to help them later in the night, Weathers, along with climber Yasuko Namba, appeared to be dead. (Namba later did die.) Weathers was left behind, and spent a night utterly exposed to the elements. To the astonishment (and deep shame) of many of the climbers on the expedition, he regained consciousness the following morning and staggered into Camp Four.
Earlier, up higher on the mountain, before the bad weather set in, Krakauer had been among those who climbed past Weathers on the balcony. Some of Boukreev's defenders have accused Krakauer of not being completely honest about what transpired between the two. And there are indeed differences between Krakauer's account and a version Weathers later provided.
In "Into Thin Air," Krakauer writes that he implored Weathers to come down to Camp Four with him. "Come with me," Krakauer reports he said. "It will be at least another two or three hours before Rob shows up. I'll be your eyes. I'll get you down, no problem." Krakauer then berates himself for mentioning that Groom would be coming along shortly. Weathers elected to wait for Groom, and Krakauer admits he was secretly relieved. He was worried about being able to drag his own ass down the mountain.
In a taped lecture that Weathers gave not long ago -- a tape that has become a hot bootleg among the anti-Krakauer contingent -- Weathers offers a slightly different, if not entirely irreconcilable, version of this encounter. Here's a relevant excerpt:
It gets to be about 5 o'clock and I see a lone figure coming out of the what is now beginning to be a little bit of blowing snow and a little bit of dropping temperature ... and it's Jon Krakauer. Jon says, "Beck, what are you doing here?" And I tell him my sad little tale. And I said, "Jon, I don't think I can wait any longer. I think Rob's going to have to understand, but it's starting to go south on us. And I'm going to need somebody to act as my eyes. And it's not a big deal. We'll just go a little bit slow ..." And Jon was clearly not happy with this idea. His body language and ... his first reaction was to say, "Beck, I'm not a guide." I said, "I know that, Jon. But I can't see well enough to walk off of this thing." In all credit to Jon, I have no doubt that had I pushed the point with him, he would have done it. But he told me at the same time, you know, Mike Groom is 20 minutes behind. He has a radio. I said, "Not a problem, I'll wait for Mike."
In an interview with Salon, Weathers claims that Krakauer's account doesn't bother him. "There is nothing in Jon's book that offends me. He did say, 'I'm not a guide.' He did not say, 'I'm not a guide so I won't help you down the mountain.' I took it as him saying, 'I have no special skills.'"
He adds: "Anatoli Boukreev certainly did not play a role in getting me off the mountain. The only role he played was stepping over my body."
Krakauer responds by saying, "I don't get why [Boukreev's defenders] are making such a big deal about this. It's just another part of their effort to discredit me." Krakauer says he has no doubt that Weathers' description of his body language is correct, but he says he was more than willing to help him. He adds: "I didn't just tell Beck that I wasn't a guide -- I told him I didn't have any rope. And in order to get him down the mountain, he would have had to be short-roped to another climber. That's what Groom eventually did."
Strangely enough, Boukreev and Krakauer had a final, unexpected, encounter about a month before Boukreev's death on Annapurna. Boukreev was sitting on a panel discussion about climbing at the Banff Mountain Book Festival in Banff, Alberta, and Krakauer happened to be in the audience. Boukreev spent a good portion of the evening attacking Krakauer's book, and when question time rolled around Krakauer was the first in line. "Anatoli," Krakauer said, fuming, "I think your book is so dishonest." It's something Krakauer now regrets saying, calling it an "embarrassing mistake."
Afterward, however, Krakauer caught up with Boukreev and his girlfriend outside the building. "We talked for about a half hour," Krakauer says. "I admitted that my depiction of him in my original Outside article wasn't as balanced as it could have been. He admitted a few things, too. It wasn't exactly a rapprochement. We agreed to disagree about some things. But if he had only lived, I think we could be sorting this thing out."
SALON | Aug. 3, 1998
"Early in the trip, I thought Scott's [Fischer's] system was fucked, and it ended up being better than our system, and that shows you how little I know. I remember thinking Anatoli's this great strong guy, but he's terrible with people. He's never around -- he's always up front with his Sherpa. ... I thought they [the Mountain Madness expedition members] were looking for trouble. ... Some of us [on the Adventure Consultants team] were smug -- that our group was sort of the safest, that it was more conservatively guided. And we worried about Scott's group and his laissez-faire, let people do what they want. And, in the end, all Scott's clients survived. ... Anatoli is who he is. He's going to be always up front. And, as it happened, this time he was down, he just happened to be down and strong enough to save people when the time came." The member of the Adventure Consultants' team who offered this testimony within days of the Everest tragedy and before the media began to seriously hunger for someone to blame? Jon Krakauer.
In closing, I would like to suggest that Krakauer's motivation for continuing to apply creative candlepower to the subject of Anatoli Boukreev may, in part, be motivated by his desire to keep the spotlight from settling on a question that began to loom in the weeks after the Everest tragedy of 1996: Did Krakauer's presence on the Adventure Consultants expedition contribute to the tragedy that unfolded? That question, which has kicked around in pubs and at the crags for more than two years, surfaced three weeks ago in a more than credible forum, the 1998 edition of the American Alpine Journal. In that publication, mountaineer and writer Galen Rowell, who has met in Nepal with several of the players in the Everest tragedy and who favorably reviewed "Into Thin Air" for The Wall Street Journal, says in a review of "The Climb," "The reader senses that the presence of an Outside journalist as a client on the most fatal commercial Everest venture was no coincidence."
It is a matter worth considering, I think -- not for the purpose of placing blame -- but for inquiring into what it means to have a high-profile, participatory media presence in high-risk, extreme sports. Maybe there is something to learn in considering the question. Maybe there are lives to be saved.
SALON | Aug. 14, 1998
Arrogance
It's a pity that two of the most important figures in the events of May 10, 1996 (Boukreev and Lopsang) both died in the mountains within months.
It would probably have been a more genuine account on Krakauer's side if he had focussed his energies on uncovering the story of his own team, Adventure Consultants, after all they suffered the casualties, and Krakauer knew and understood them best. Obvious, the dead don't tell stories, and since all the client caqsualties were from AC it is difficult to speculate. If you don't see or hear something, you have to guess, and rely on a lot of circumstantial evidence. That's too bad.
Mountain Madness have a more solid story, and more reliable since all the clients are still around to tell it. Though had their own difficulties, they managed to scrape through and get out alive and unharmed. Each individual contributed to the events that day, some more and some less. Many individuals contributed incompetence, and very few were able to absorb these failures sufficiently to effect the course of events. At the end of the day, only a single individual (Boukreev) had the strength and courage (and mental alacrity)to do anything (after ascending the summit), and it's bizarre that his extraordinary efforts are not universally praised and recognised. The reason is probably because that man was not an egoist, he simply knew how to climb mountains, and loved his passion without needing popular support.
It's interesting how this quiet, strong character who seemed to have been made fun of, turned out the strongest and bravest, and the empty barrels have largely been silenced in the face of their incompetence and bullshit.
Doug Hansen drew away valuable energy (For AC), which more than likely had an effect on Hall's and Harris' deaths.
Sandy Hill Pittman also made life difficult for the crew around her. It is people who treat the mountain as she did, where the risks and efforts get 'paid for' by others, at least indirectly, this is where the mountain simply shows that it's will is done, not the will of dollars or even the stubbornness of men. The mountain tolerates sometimes, and climbers must adapt to the degree, or face the consequences.
This entire drama provides valuable surgical insight (the rich and the spoilt attempting to 'groove'up the world's highest mountain) for how the Circus Of Man gets ripped to shreds by the unhappy Sigh of Nature. We see ourselves as giants upon the Earth, but we still have not proved that we can take care of ourselves over any significant period of time. Most of us don't have enough to eat, most of us can't read. For every person out there who has enough to eat, has a job and a car, there's more than one other person who has neither of these things, and faces a desperate struggle to survive. Yet our society insists on loving the rich and beautiful, those with the loudest voices and the most conceit.
There is more strength in the sea and the sky than our most powerful weapons, but we insist on the hope that we are owners of the world, this planet, and not part of it. And all pay the price for such arrogance.
It would probably have been a more genuine account on Krakauer's side if he had focussed his energies on uncovering the story of his own team, Adventure Consultants, after all they suffered the casualties, and Krakauer knew and understood them best. Obvious, the dead don't tell stories, and since all the client caqsualties were from AC it is difficult to speculate. If you don't see or hear something, you have to guess, and rely on a lot of circumstantial evidence. That's too bad.
Mountain Madness have a more solid story, and more reliable since all the clients are still around to tell it. Though had their own difficulties, they managed to scrape through and get out alive and unharmed. Each individual contributed to the events that day, some more and some less. Many individuals contributed incompetence, and very few were able to absorb these failures sufficiently to effect the course of events. At the end of the day, only a single individual (Boukreev) had the strength and courage (and mental alacrity)to do anything (after ascending the summit), and it's bizarre that his extraordinary efforts are not universally praised and recognised. The reason is probably because that man was not an egoist, he simply knew how to climb mountains, and loved his passion without needing popular support.
It's interesting how this quiet, strong character who seemed to have been made fun of, turned out the strongest and bravest, and the empty barrels have largely been silenced in the face of their incompetence and bullshit.
Doug Hansen drew away valuable energy (For AC), which more than likely had an effect on Hall's and Harris' deaths.
Sandy Hill Pittman also made life difficult for the crew around her. It is people who treat the mountain as she did, where the risks and efforts get 'paid for' by others, at least indirectly, this is where the mountain simply shows that it's will is done, not the will of dollars or even the stubbornness of men. The mountain tolerates sometimes, and climbers must adapt to the degree, or face the consequences.
This entire drama provides valuable surgical insight (the rich and the spoilt attempting to 'groove'up the world's highest mountain) for how the Circus Of Man gets ripped to shreds by the unhappy Sigh of Nature. We see ourselves as giants upon the Earth, but we still have not proved that we can take care of ourselves over any significant period of time. Most of us don't have enough to eat, most of us can't read. For every person out there who has enough to eat, has a job and a car, there's more than one other person who has neither of these things, and faces a desperate struggle to survive. Yet our society insists on loving the rich and beautiful, those with the loudest voices and the most conceit.
There is more strength in the sea and the sky than our most powerful weapons, but we insist on the hope that we are owners of the world, this planet, and not part of it. And all pay the price for such arrogance.
Boukreev's Letter
July 31, 1996
Mr. Mark Bryant, Editor
Outside Magazine
400 Market St.
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
USA
Dear Mr. Bryant:
I am writing you because I think Jon Krakauer's "Into Thin Air," which appeared in your September, 1996 issue, was unjustly critical of my decisions and actions on Mount Everest on May 10, 1996. While I have respect for Mr. Krakauer, share some of his opinions about high altitude guiding, and believe he did everything within his power to assist fellow climbers on that tragic day on Everest, I believe his lack of proximity to certain events and his limited experience at high altitude may have gotten in the way of his ability to objectively evaluate the events of summit day.
My decisions and actions were based upon more than twenty years of high altitude climbing experience. In my career I have summited Mount Everest three times. I have twelve times summited mountains of over 8,000 meters. I have summited seven of the world's fourteen mountains over 8,000 meters in elevation, all of those without the use of supplementary oxygen. This experience, I can appreciate, is not response enough to the questions raised by Mr. Krakauer, so I offer the following details.
After fixing the ropes and breaking the trail to the summit, I stayed at the top of Everest from 1:07 p.m. until approximately 2:30 p.m., waiting for other climbers to summit. During that time only two client climbers made the top. They were Klev Schoening, seen in the summit photograph (pages 46-47) taken by me, and Martin Adams, both of them from Scott Fischer's expedition. Concerned that others were not coming onto the summit and because I had no radio link to those below me, I began to wonder if there were difficulties down the mountain. I made the decision to descend.
Just below the summit I encountered Rob Hall, the expedition leader from New Zealand, who appeared to be in good shape. Then I passed four of Scott Fischer's client climbers and four of his expedition's Sherpas, all of whom were still ascending. They all appeared to be all right. Then, just above the Hillary Step I saw and talked with Scott Fischer. He was tired and laboring, but said he was just a little slow. There was no apparent sign of difficulty, although now I have begun to suspect that his oxygen supply was, then, already depleted. I said to Scott that the ascent seemed to be going slowly and that I was concerned descending climbers could possibly run out of oxygen before their return to Camp IV. I explained I wanted to descend as quickly as possible to Camp IV in order to warm myself and gather a supply of hot drink and oxygen in the event I might need to go back up the mountain to assist descending climbers. Scott, as had Rob Hall immediately before him, said "OK" to this plan.
I felt comfortable with the decision, knowing that four Sherpas, Neal Beidleman, (like me, a guide), Rob Hall, and Scott Fischer would be bringing up the rear to sweep the clients to Camp IV. Understand, at this time there were no clear indications that the weather was going to change and deteriorate as rapidly as it did.
Given my decisions: (1) I was able to return to Camp IV by shortly after 5:00 p.m. (slowed by the advancing storm), gather supplies and oxygen and, by 6:00 p.m. begin my solo effort in the onset of a blizzard to locate straggling climbers; and (2) I was able, finally, to locate lost and huddled climbers, resupply them with oxygen, offer them warming tea, and provide them the physical support and strength necessary to get them to the safety of Camp IV.
Also, Mr. Krakauer raised a question about my climbing without oxygen and suggested that perhaps my effectiveness was compromised by that decision. In the history of my career, as I have detailed it above, it has been my practice to climb without supplementary oxygen. In my experience it is safer for me, once acclimatized, to climb without oxygen in order to avoid the sudden loss of acclimatization that occurs when supplementary oxygen supplies are depleted.
My particular physiology, my years of high altitude climbing, my discipline, the commitment I make to proper acclimatization and the knowledge I have of my own capacities have always made me comfortable with this choice. And, Scott Fischer was comfortable with that choice as well. He authorized me to climb without supplementary oxygen.
To this I would add: As a precautionary measure, in the event that some extraordinary demand was placed upon me on summit day, I was carrying one (1) bottle of supplementary oxygen, a mask, and a reductor. As I was ascending, I was for a while climbing with Neal Beidleman. At 8,500 meters, after monitoring my condition and feeling that it was good, I elected to give my bottle oxygen to Neal, about whose personal supply I was concerned. Given the power that Neal was able to sustain in his later efforts to bring clients down the mountain, I feel it was the right decision to have made.
Lastly, Mr. Krakauer raises a question about how I was dressed on summit day, suggesting I was not adequately protected from the elements. A review of summit day photographs will show that I was clothed in the latest, highest quality, high altitude gear, comparable, if not better, than that worn by the other members of our expedition.
In closing, I would like to say that since May 10, 1996, Mr. Krakauer and I have had many opportunities to reflect upon our respective experiences and memories. I have considered what might have happened had I not made a rapid descent. My opinion: Given the weather conditions and the lack of visibility that developed, I think it likely I would have died with the client climbers that in the early hours of May 11, I was able to find and bring to Camp IV, or I would have had to have left them on the mountain to go for help in Camp IV where, as was in the reality of events that unfolded, there was nobody able or willing to conduct rescue efforts.
I know Mr. Krakauer, like me, grieves and feels profoundly the loss of our fellow climbers. We both wish that events had unfolded in a very different way. What we can do now is contribute to a clearer understanding of what happened that day on Everest in the hope that the lessons to be learned will reduce the risk for others who, like us, take on the challenge of the mountains. I extend my hand to him and encourage that effort.
My personal regards,
Anatoli Nikoliavich Boukreev
Almaty, Kazakhstan
Mr. Mark Bryant, Editor
Outside Magazine
400 Market St.
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
USA
Dear Mr. Bryant:
I am writing you because I think Jon Krakauer's "Into Thin Air," which appeared in your September, 1996 issue, was unjustly critical of my decisions and actions on Mount Everest on May 10, 1996. While I have respect for Mr. Krakauer, share some of his opinions about high altitude guiding, and believe he did everything within his power to assist fellow climbers on that tragic day on Everest, I believe his lack of proximity to certain events and his limited experience at high altitude may have gotten in the way of his ability to objectively evaluate the events of summit day.
My decisions and actions were based upon more than twenty years of high altitude climbing experience. In my career I have summited Mount Everest three times. I have twelve times summited mountains of over 8,000 meters. I have summited seven of the world's fourteen mountains over 8,000 meters in elevation, all of those without the use of supplementary oxygen. This experience, I can appreciate, is not response enough to the questions raised by Mr. Krakauer, so I offer the following details.
After fixing the ropes and breaking the trail to the summit, I stayed at the top of Everest from 1:07 p.m. until approximately 2:30 p.m., waiting for other climbers to summit. During that time only two client climbers made the top. They were Klev Schoening, seen in the summit photograph (pages 46-47) taken by me, and Martin Adams, both of them from Scott Fischer's expedition. Concerned that others were not coming onto the summit and because I had no radio link to those below me, I began to wonder if there were difficulties down the mountain. I made the decision to descend.
Just below the summit I encountered Rob Hall, the expedition leader from New Zealand, who appeared to be in good shape. Then I passed four of Scott Fischer's client climbers and four of his expedition's Sherpas, all of whom were still ascending. They all appeared to be all right. Then, just above the Hillary Step I saw and talked with Scott Fischer. He was tired and laboring, but said he was just a little slow. There was no apparent sign of difficulty, although now I have begun to suspect that his oxygen supply was, then, already depleted. I said to Scott that the ascent seemed to be going slowly and that I was concerned descending climbers could possibly run out of oxygen before their return to Camp IV. I explained I wanted to descend as quickly as possible to Camp IV in order to warm myself and gather a supply of hot drink and oxygen in the event I might need to go back up the mountain to assist descending climbers. Scott, as had Rob Hall immediately before him, said "OK" to this plan.
I felt comfortable with the decision, knowing that four Sherpas, Neal Beidleman, (like me, a guide), Rob Hall, and Scott Fischer would be bringing up the rear to sweep the clients to Camp IV. Understand, at this time there were no clear indications that the weather was going to change and deteriorate as rapidly as it did.
Given my decisions: (1) I was able to return to Camp IV by shortly after 5:00 p.m. (slowed by the advancing storm), gather supplies and oxygen and, by 6:00 p.m. begin my solo effort in the onset of a blizzard to locate straggling climbers; and (2) I was able, finally, to locate lost and huddled climbers, resupply them with oxygen, offer them warming tea, and provide them the physical support and strength necessary to get them to the safety of Camp IV.
Also, Mr. Krakauer raised a question about my climbing without oxygen and suggested that perhaps my effectiveness was compromised by that decision. In the history of my career, as I have detailed it above, it has been my practice to climb without supplementary oxygen. In my experience it is safer for me, once acclimatized, to climb without oxygen in order to avoid the sudden loss of acclimatization that occurs when supplementary oxygen supplies are depleted.
My particular physiology, my years of high altitude climbing, my discipline, the commitment I make to proper acclimatization and the knowledge I have of my own capacities have always made me comfortable with this choice. And, Scott Fischer was comfortable with that choice as well. He authorized me to climb without supplementary oxygen.
To this I would add: As a precautionary measure, in the event that some extraordinary demand was placed upon me on summit day, I was carrying one (1) bottle of supplementary oxygen, a mask, and a reductor. As I was ascending, I was for a while climbing with Neal Beidleman. At 8,500 meters, after monitoring my condition and feeling that it was good, I elected to give my bottle oxygen to Neal, about whose personal supply I was concerned. Given the power that Neal was able to sustain in his later efforts to bring clients down the mountain, I feel it was the right decision to have made.
Lastly, Mr. Krakauer raises a question about how I was dressed on summit day, suggesting I was not adequately protected from the elements. A review of summit day photographs will show that I was clothed in the latest, highest quality, high altitude gear, comparable, if not better, than that worn by the other members of our expedition.
In closing, I would like to say that since May 10, 1996, Mr. Krakauer and I have had many opportunities to reflect upon our respective experiences and memories. I have considered what might have happened had I not made a rapid descent. My opinion: Given the weather conditions and the lack of visibility that developed, I think it likely I would have died with the client climbers that in the early hours of May 11, I was able to find and bring to Camp IV, or I would have had to have left them on the mountain to go for help in Camp IV where, as was in the reality of events that unfolded, there was nobody able or willing to conduct rescue efforts.
I know Mr. Krakauer, like me, grieves and feels profoundly the loss of our fellow climbers. We both wish that events had unfolded in a very different way. What we can do now is contribute to a clearer understanding of what happened that day on Everest in the hope that the lessons to be learned will reduce the risk for others who, like us, take on the challenge of the mountains. I extend my hand to him and encourage that effort.
My personal regards,
Anatoli Nikoliavich Boukreev
Almaty, Kazakhstan
Krakauer's Letter
True Everest
Everest Revelation: A Clarification
By Jon Krakauer
In my article "Into Thin Air" I speculated that Andy Harris, a guide on Rob Hall's expedition, walked off the edge of the South Col and fell to his death after becoming disoriented in the rogue storm of May 10. Only minutes before Harris disappeared, I'd encountered him in the blizzard. I spoke with him briefly and then watched him walk to within 30 yards of camp, where he became enveloped in clouds.
Two weeks after the magazine went to press, I discovered compelling evidence that Harris did not walk off the Col to his death and that the person I had met in the storm just above Camp Four was in fact not Harris. In a telephone conversation, Martin Adams, a client on Scott Fischer's expedition, revealed that he, too, had encountered a climber sitting just above the South Col at about the same time I had encountered Harris. In the stormy darkness, Adams couldn't tell who the other climber was, but their conversation, he says, was very similar to the conversation I reported having with Harris. Both Adams and I are now certain that, in my own hypoxic condition, I confused him with Harris.
On July 25, in a four-hour, face-to-face discussion, Lobsang Jangbu, Fischer's head sherpa revealed something that hadn't come up in previous discussions: that he had spoken with Harris on the South Summit at 5:30 p.m. on May 10 approximately the same time I thought I saw Harris near the South Col. By this late hour Rob Hall had been repeatedly calling for help on the radio, saying that Doug Hansen had collapsed on the Hillary Step and that both Hall and Hansen desperately needed oxygen. As Lobsang began descending from the South Summit, he saw Harris, who was himself ailing, plodding slowly up the summit ridge to assist Hall and Hansen. It was an extremely heroic act for which Harris deserves to be remembered.
As I reported, when radio contact between Hall and Base Camp was reestablished the next morning, a distraught, severely debilitated Hall said that Harris "was with me last night. But he doesn't seem to be with me now. He was very weak." From this snippet, which I originally interpreted as being the incoherent babble of a severely hypoxic man, it is impossible to say exactly what became of Harris. But the awful truth that he is gone remains.
For two months after returning from Everest, I was haunted by the fact that Harris, who'd become a close friend during the expedition, appeared to have been so near the safety of Camp Four and yet never made it. Unable to let the matter rest, I obsessively mulled the circumstances of his death even after my article went to press which is how I made the belated discovery of my error.
That I confused Harris for Adams is perhaps not surprising, given the poor visibility, my profound exhaustion, and the confused, oxygen-starved state I was in. But my mistake greatly compounded the pain of Andy Harris's partner, Fiona McPherson; his parents, Ron and Mary Harris; and his many friends. For that I am inexpressibly sorry.
Everest Revelation: A Clarification
By Jon Krakauer
In my article "Into Thin Air" I speculated that Andy Harris, a guide on Rob Hall's expedition, walked off the edge of the South Col and fell to his death after becoming disoriented in the rogue storm of May 10. Only minutes before Harris disappeared, I'd encountered him in the blizzard. I spoke with him briefly and then watched him walk to within 30 yards of camp, where he became enveloped in clouds.
Two weeks after the magazine went to press, I discovered compelling evidence that Harris did not walk off the Col to his death and that the person I had met in the storm just above Camp Four was in fact not Harris. In a telephone conversation, Martin Adams, a client on Scott Fischer's expedition, revealed that he, too, had encountered a climber sitting just above the South Col at about the same time I had encountered Harris. In the stormy darkness, Adams couldn't tell who the other climber was, but their conversation, he says, was very similar to the conversation I reported having with Harris. Both Adams and I are now certain that, in my own hypoxic condition, I confused him with Harris.
On July 25, in a four-hour, face-to-face discussion, Lobsang Jangbu, Fischer's head sherpa revealed something that hadn't come up in previous discussions: that he had spoken with Harris on the South Summit at 5:30 p.m. on May 10 approximately the same time I thought I saw Harris near the South Col. By this late hour Rob Hall had been repeatedly calling for help on the radio, saying that Doug Hansen had collapsed on the Hillary Step and that both Hall and Hansen desperately needed oxygen. As Lobsang began descending from the South Summit, he saw Harris, who was himself ailing, plodding slowly up the summit ridge to assist Hall and Hansen. It was an extremely heroic act for which Harris deserves to be remembered.
As I reported, when radio contact between Hall and Base Camp was reestablished the next morning, a distraught, severely debilitated Hall said that Harris "was with me last night. But he doesn't seem to be with me now. He was very weak." From this snippet, which I originally interpreted as being the incoherent babble of a severely hypoxic man, it is impossible to say exactly what became of Harris. But the awful truth that he is gone remains.
For two months after returning from Everest, I was haunted by the fact that Harris, who'd become a close friend during the expedition, appeared to have been so near the safety of Camp Four and yet never made it. Unable to let the matter rest, I obsessively mulled the circumstances of his death even after my article went to press which is how I made the belated discovery of my error.
That I confused Harris for Adams is perhaps not surprising, given the poor visibility, my profound exhaustion, and the confused, oxygen-starved state I was in. But my mistake greatly compounded the pain of Andy Harris's partner, Fiona McPherson; his parents, Ron and Mary Harris; and his many friends. For that I am inexpressibly sorry.
Krakauer's Response To Broukeev Letter
Everest Revelation: A Clarification (Cont.)
Reply from Jon Krakauer
August 24, 1996
TO: Letters Editor, Outside Online
RE: Anatoli Boukreev's objections to my article in the September, 1996 issue of Outside, "Into Thin Air"
Anatoli Boukreev's letter to the editor of Outside, dated July 31, 1996, demands a response. Anatoli performed heroically in the pre-dawn hours of May 11, and helped save the lives of Sandy Pittman and Charlotte Fox; I admire him immensely for going out alone in the storm, when the rest of us were lying helpless in our tents, and bringing in the lost climbers. But his behavior as a guide earlier in the day is troubling, and I continue to feel quite strongly that it needed to be addressed in print.
After speaking with Anatoli at length and on several occasions, the crucial facts remain indisputable: Anatoli elected not to use supplemental oxygen on summit day, May 10, and after tagging the summit he went down alone ahead of his clients, defying the conventions of responsible guiding. Why would a guide do this? Anatoli's explanation—"I wanted to descend as quickly as possible to Camp IV in order to warm myself and gather a supply of hot drink and oxygen in the event I might need to go back up the mountain to assist descending climbers"—betrays, at best, an alarming lack of judgment.
If Anatoli was concerned that his clients might run out of oxygen, why didn't he carry extra oxygen for them on the way up, instead of carrying nothing at all, not even a pack? He jettisoned his pack early on the climb, around 6:30 a.m., just above the 27,800-foot "Balcony." All the other guides on the mountain wore packs, in which they carried such items as rope, first aid supplies, extra crampons and clothing—the things experienced guides typically carry to assist clients in the event of an emergency. Of the 30-some climbers attempting the summit on May 10, Anatoli was the only person up there without a pack.
If Anatoli was worried about dwindling oxygen supplies, why didn't he suggest to Fischer or Lopsang Jangbu Sherpa (when Anatoli met them on the summit ridge as Anatoli was descending) that they radio Camp IV and request that Pemba Sherpa (who was waiting on the South Col in support for just such an eventuality) start heading up with extra oxygen? It is extremely difficult for me to accept that the most sensible course of action was for Anatoli to rush down alone ahead of the clients, then attempt to come all the way back up with a load of extra oxygen. Climbing to the summit ridge of Everest twice in a single day—without relying on gas, in a raging blizzard—has never been done in the history of mountaineering, and is probably beyond the abilities of any climber, even one as accomplished as Anatoli. I believe—and some of his clients concur—that the clients would have been better served if Anatoli had stayed and assisted them down the mountain. Anatoli did not have a radio (neither he nor Neal Beidleman were given radios; only Fischer and Lopsang carried radios among Fischer's team). Once he abandoned his crew, it was thus impossible for him to even know what kind of trouble the clients might be in, or know where on that huge expanse of mountain they might actually be.
In fact, at 6 p.m. on May 10, when Anatoli "gathered supplies and oxygen," as he describes it, and began his "solo effort in the onset of a blizzard to locate straggling climbers," he was able to climb no more than 600 feet above Camp IV before becoming disoriented in the storm and being forced to descend back to the tents around 8 p.m. without locating anybody. This was a brave and noble effort on Anatoli's part, and is to be commended, but it was completely ineffective, and demonstrates rather dramatically what was wrong with his decision to descend ahead of his clients.
And even though Scott Fischer gave him permission to do so, does Anatoli really think that it was in his clients' best interest for him to climb without using supplemental oxygen? Anatoli is a remarkably strong climber at altitude, but he was paid $25,000 to perform as a guide, and oxygen would have certainly allowed him to think more clearly and assist clients much more readily. Or does Anatoli somehow believe that he is stronger without oxygen than with it?
Anatoli states, "In my experience it is safer for me, once acclimatized, to climb without oxygen in order to avoid the sudden loss of acclimatization that occurs when supplementary oxygen supplies are depleted." In truth, once acclimatized, any climber—including Anatoli—would be better off using bottled oxygen on a summit attempt and having it run out late in the day than not using it in the first place. The harmful effects of hypoxia are cumulative; the longer you go without oxygen, the more deleterious the outcome. If Anatoli doubts this, I suggest that he consult any reputable expert in high-altitude physiology, or compare notes with such accomplished Himalayan climbers as Alex Lowe and Ed Viesturs—who have demonstrated that they are at least as strong as Anatoli above 8,000 meters—and wouldn't think of guiding without using gas.
Anatoli also states, "As a precautionary measure, in the event that some extraordinary demand was placed on me on summit day, I was carrying one (1) bottle of supplementary oxygen, a mask, and a reductor.... At 8,500 meters [approximately 27,800 feet], after monitoring my condition and feeling it was good, I elected to give my bottle oxygen to Neal [Beidleman], about whose personal supply I was concerned." This implies that Anatoli was doing Beidleman a favor by giving him this bottle. In truth, Beidleman—who had a full bottle of oxygen at the time, and was already using his own perfectly functioning mask and regulator—neither needed nor wanted Anatoli's bottle, mask, and regulator, which added approximately 10 pounds to the large load Beidleman was already carrying (by that point Beidleman was also carrying two coils of rope he'd taken from the ailing Lopsang, who, like Anatoli, was not using gas). In effect, Anatoli said to Beidleman, "Now that I know I'm not going to need this oxygen, you carry it for me, because somebody else may need it later." Anatoli was simply trying to strip his load down to the bare minimum, because he was climbing without gas and wanted every possible advantage in the horribly thin air above 27,000 feet.
In Anatoli's letter to the editor, he included his climbing résumé. It is a very impressive tally of ascents, but there is a world of difference between being a brilliant climber and an able guide. Throughout Anatoli's defense of his actions he has implied that Scott Fischer fully approved of his guiding style. In fact, Fischer had repeatedly reprimanded Anatoli throughout the expedition for not sticking closer to his clients. On May 7, during Fischer's last satellite phone conversation with his business partner in Seattle, Karen Dickinson, he told her that he was furious with Anatoli for not fulfilling his responsibilities as a guide. The day before, on May 6, in the middle of the Khumbu Icefall, Fischer severely castigated Anatoli in front of one of their clients for being AWOL during a potentially life-threatening situation.
Many of us who were on Everest last May made mistakes. As I indicated in my article, my own actions may have contributed to the deaths of two of my teammates. Anatoli is an extraordinary Himalayan climber, and I don't doubt that his intentions were good on summit day. What troubles me, though, is Anatoli's utter refusal to acknowledge the possibility that he made even a single poor decision. Not once has he ever indicated to me that maybe, just maybe, it wasn't the smartest choice to climb without gas or go down ahead of his clients. Anatoli doggedly insists that he would make the same decisions all over again—in his opinion, he was the only person on the mountain who did everything right. The rest of us fucked up big-time, but not Anatoli.
Such arrogance, I believe, is dangerous for any climber, but it is especially dangerous for one who purports to be a Himalayan guide.
Jon Krakauer
Seattle
Reply from Jon Krakauer
August 24, 1996
TO: Letters Editor, Outside Online
RE: Anatoli Boukreev's objections to my article in the September, 1996 issue of Outside, "Into Thin Air"
Anatoli Boukreev's letter to the editor of Outside, dated July 31, 1996, demands a response. Anatoli performed heroically in the pre-dawn hours of May 11, and helped save the lives of Sandy Pittman and Charlotte Fox; I admire him immensely for going out alone in the storm, when the rest of us were lying helpless in our tents, and bringing in the lost climbers. But his behavior as a guide earlier in the day is troubling, and I continue to feel quite strongly that it needed to be addressed in print.
After speaking with Anatoli at length and on several occasions, the crucial facts remain indisputable: Anatoli elected not to use supplemental oxygen on summit day, May 10, and after tagging the summit he went down alone ahead of his clients, defying the conventions of responsible guiding. Why would a guide do this? Anatoli's explanation—"I wanted to descend as quickly as possible to Camp IV in order to warm myself and gather a supply of hot drink and oxygen in the event I might need to go back up the mountain to assist descending climbers"—betrays, at best, an alarming lack of judgment.
If Anatoli was concerned that his clients might run out of oxygen, why didn't he carry extra oxygen for them on the way up, instead of carrying nothing at all, not even a pack? He jettisoned his pack early on the climb, around 6:30 a.m., just above the 27,800-foot "Balcony." All the other guides on the mountain wore packs, in which they carried such items as rope, first aid supplies, extra crampons and clothing—the things experienced guides typically carry to assist clients in the event of an emergency. Of the 30-some climbers attempting the summit on May 10, Anatoli was the only person up there without a pack.
If Anatoli was worried about dwindling oxygen supplies, why didn't he suggest to Fischer or Lopsang Jangbu Sherpa (when Anatoli met them on the summit ridge as Anatoli was descending) that they radio Camp IV and request that Pemba Sherpa (who was waiting on the South Col in support for just such an eventuality) start heading up with extra oxygen? It is extremely difficult for me to accept that the most sensible course of action was for Anatoli to rush down alone ahead of the clients, then attempt to come all the way back up with a load of extra oxygen. Climbing to the summit ridge of Everest twice in a single day—without relying on gas, in a raging blizzard—has never been done in the history of mountaineering, and is probably beyond the abilities of any climber, even one as accomplished as Anatoli. I believe—and some of his clients concur—that the clients would have been better served if Anatoli had stayed and assisted them down the mountain. Anatoli did not have a radio (neither he nor Neal Beidleman were given radios; only Fischer and Lopsang carried radios among Fischer's team). Once he abandoned his crew, it was thus impossible for him to even know what kind of trouble the clients might be in, or know where on that huge expanse of mountain they might actually be.
In fact, at 6 p.m. on May 10, when Anatoli "gathered supplies and oxygen," as he describes it, and began his "solo effort in the onset of a blizzard to locate straggling climbers," he was able to climb no more than 600 feet above Camp IV before becoming disoriented in the storm and being forced to descend back to the tents around 8 p.m. without locating anybody. This was a brave and noble effort on Anatoli's part, and is to be commended, but it was completely ineffective, and demonstrates rather dramatically what was wrong with his decision to descend ahead of his clients.
And even though Scott Fischer gave him permission to do so, does Anatoli really think that it was in his clients' best interest for him to climb without using supplemental oxygen? Anatoli is a remarkably strong climber at altitude, but he was paid $25,000 to perform as a guide, and oxygen would have certainly allowed him to think more clearly and assist clients much more readily. Or does Anatoli somehow believe that he is stronger without oxygen than with it?
Anatoli states, "In my experience it is safer for me, once acclimatized, to climb without oxygen in order to avoid the sudden loss of acclimatization that occurs when supplementary oxygen supplies are depleted." In truth, once acclimatized, any climber—including Anatoli—would be better off using bottled oxygen on a summit attempt and having it run out late in the day than not using it in the first place. The harmful effects of hypoxia are cumulative; the longer you go without oxygen, the more deleterious the outcome. If Anatoli doubts this, I suggest that he consult any reputable expert in high-altitude physiology, or compare notes with such accomplished Himalayan climbers as Alex Lowe and Ed Viesturs—who have demonstrated that they are at least as strong as Anatoli above 8,000 meters—and wouldn't think of guiding without using gas.
Anatoli also states, "As a precautionary measure, in the event that some extraordinary demand was placed on me on summit day, I was carrying one (1) bottle of supplementary oxygen, a mask, and a reductor.... At 8,500 meters [approximately 27,800 feet], after monitoring my condition and feeling it was good, I elected to give my bottle oxygen to Neal [Beidleman], about whose personal supply I was concerned." This implies that Anatoli was doing Beidleman a favor by giving him this bottle. In truth, Beidleman—who had a full bottle of oxygen at the time, and was already using his own perfectly functioning mask and regulator—neither needed nor wanted Anatoli's bottle, mask, and regulator, which added approximately 10 pounds to the large load Beidleman was already carrying (by that point Beidleman was also carrying two coils of rope he'd taken from the ailing Lopsang, who, like Anatoli, was not using gas). In effect, Anatoli said to Beidleman, "Now that I know I'm not going to need this oxygen, you carry it for me, because somebody else may need it later." Anatoli was simply trying to strip his load down to the bare minimum, because he was climbing without gas and wanted every possible advantage in the horribly thin air above 27,000 feet.
In Anatoli's letter to the editor, he included his climbing résumé. It is a very impressive tally of ascents, but there is a world of difference between being a brilliant climber and an able guide. Throughout Anatoli's defense of his actions he has implied that Scott Fischer fully approved of his guiding style. In fact, Fischer had repeatedly reprimanded Anatoli throughout the expedition for not sticking closer to his clients. On May 7, during Fischer's last satellite phone conversation with his business partner in Seattle, Karen Dickinson, he told her that he was furious with Anatoli for not fulfilling his responsibilities as a guide. The day before, on May 6, in the middle of the Khumbu Icefall, Fischer severely castigated Anatoli in front of one of their clients for being AWOL during a potentially life-threatening situation.
Many of us who were on Everest last May made mistakes. As I indicated in my article, my own actions may have contributed to the deaths of two of my teammates. Anatoli is an extraordinary Himalayan climber, and I don't doubt that his intentions were good on summit day. What troubles me, though, is Anatoli's utter refusal to acknowledge the possibility that he made even a single poor decision. Not once has he ever indicated to me that maybe, just maybe, it wasn't the smartest choice to climb without gas or go down ahead of his clients. Anatoli doggedly insists that he would make the same decisions all over again—in his opinion, he was the only person on the mountain who did everything right. The rest of us fucked up big-time, but not Anatoli.
Such arrogance, I believe, is dangerous for any climber, but it is especially dangerous for one who purports to be a Himalayan guide.
Jon Krakauer
Seattle
The Edge
One of the climbers in this shot is Gary Hall, the New Zealand guide who died on Everest in 1996.
Lopsang Jangbu Sherpa Criticism Of Krakauer
Everest Revelation: A Clarification (Cont.)
Response from Lopsang Jangbu Sherpa
August 11, 1996
The Editor
Outside Magazine
400 Market Street
Santa Fe, NM 87501
Dear Mr. Editor:
I am writing to you in response to the "Into Thin Air" piece written by Jon Krakauer, published in your September, 1996, issue.
I came to Seattle to attend Scott Fischer's memorial service and stayed there throughout the summer. Jon didn't interview me until after he had already written and submitted his "Thin Air" piece. As a result many false and negative allegations were made against my group, led by Scott Fischer concerning the disaster that occurred on Everest on May 10, 1996. In particular, I was singled out as contributing to these tragic events. Krakauer's reputation as an outstanding writer makes his slanderous view of my character and work habits very damaging. Because your readers have been misinformed, I would like to clear up these errors.
My choice to summit Everest without oxygen was questioned by him. I have summited Everest three times without oxygen before this year's expedition, (not two as mentioned), and will continue to do so on future expeditions. Krakauer neglected to mention that on summit day of Rob Hall's 1995 Everest expedition, I broke trail through deep snow and then fixed ropes from the south summit to the top. There I waited for one hour for other team members, who unlike myself, were using oxygen. No one else came.
Scott Fischer did not order me, nor did Sandy Pittman offer a "hefty" cash bonus to short-rope her to make it to the top. On ten other expeditions, I have short-roped any team member who has trouble. This year it was Sandy. I wanted to ensure that all group members had a good chance of making the summit. This was my goal, our team's goal. I worked very hard on this expedition and all members of my group would agree. I do not understand how Krakauer, involved in a different expedition, could write statements that judge my work habits or intentions.
With regard to the "Goldbrick" comment, you may wish to know that I netted $2,000 for this expedition, not to mention that fact that to save Sandy Pittman, I gave her my personal oxygen bottle on the way up, at 8,820 meters. I also carried an 80-pound load from Camp III to Camp IV the day prior to the summit bid, which included 30 pounds of other member's personal gear. There was no personal financial incentive for this. Money is not important for me. I always give my best, I am my father's only child and I have many uncles and family. We help each other and live very well in Kathmandu. To be described as a "Goldbrick" is completely false.
I was also referred to as a "showboat" to which I have this reply. Just below the summit of Everest, I anchored my ice ax and fixed a 15-meter rope at a dangerous spot so that all remaining team members could get down safely. I then waited for Scott to arrive. He finally arrived very late and we started down. Just as we reached my ice ax, Rob Hall and Doug Hansen were coming up my rope. After they passed, I sent Scott down and waited next to my ice ax in wind and extreme cold for them to summit and return so that they could get safely down. Once they were off my rope, I left and quickly caught Scott. From the South Summit I physically dragged him down through the storm until he could go no further. There I waited with Scott, determined to save him or die. Finally, he threatened me to save myself, saying he would jump off if I did not go down. I was, in fact, the last person to leave Scott Fischer and Makalu Gau that night. (Jon incorrectly states that three Sherpas were the last.)
In reference to the complaint about the fixing of the lines, let it be understood that on all expeditions, whoever goes first from Camp IV is supposed to fix ropes. Rob Hall's group left 45 minutes ahead of us. In my group there were two guides who were paid considerably more money than me—Anatoli (Boukreev) and Neal (Beidleman). That these strong professional guides sat on the South Summit waiting for "sherpas" or me to come up and fix lines for them seems ridiculous.
Krakauer makes references to my vomiting, implying that I was weak and unable to do my job; that it affected my performance. This too was wrong. I have been over 8,000 meters many times, and each time I vomit. It is just something that happens to me and has nothing to do with altitude sickness. I have done it on all expeditions. It just happens. I did it at Camp I, II, etc. On the way to the summit, Neal Beidleman saw me vomit and also misunderstood this. He took the load of ropes out of my pack and took off in the lead with Anatoli. I assumed they would fix lines for the group. My job then became that of seeing to the rest of the team, making sure they got to the summit. I in no way "lost sight of what I was supposed to be doing up there..." It would have been very bad for all three guides to go ahead and summit without the others. Again, I was doing my job. I thought that Neal and Anatoli were doing theirs. Also, if I was sick and weak, then why would I wait so long on the summit for Scott, Rob Hall and Doug Hansen? If I was sick and weak, how could I spend seven hours dragging Scott back down from the South Summit?
My name is misspelled and my age misrepresented. So you know, my name is Lopsang Jangbu Sherpa and I am 23 years old.
Finally, I express my profound condolences to the family and friends of the victims.
Respectfully,
Lopsang Jangbu Sherpa
Kathmandu, Nepal
Response from Lopsang Jangbu Sherpa
August 11, 1996
The Editor
Outside Magazine
400 Market Street
Santa Fe, NM 87501
Dear Mr. Editor:
I am writing to you in response to the "Into Thin Air" piece written by Jon Krakauer, published in your September, 1996, issue.
I came to Seattle to attend Scott Fischer's memorial service and stayed there throughout the summer. Jon didn't interview me until after he had already written and submitted his "Thin Air" piece. As a result many false and negative allegations were made against my group, led by Scott Fischer concerning the disaster that occurred on Everest on May 10, 1996. In particular, I was singled out as contributing to these tragic events. Krakauer's reputation as an outstanding writer makes his slanderous view of my character and work habits very damaging. Because your readers have been misinformed, I would like to clear up these errors.
My choice to summit Everest without oxygen was questioned by him. I have summited Everest three times without oxygen before this year's expedition, (not two as mentioned), and will continue to do so on future expeditions. Krakauer neglected to mention that on summit day of Rob Hall's 1995 Everest expedition, I broke trail through deep snow and then fixed ropes from the south summit to the top. There I waited for one hour for other team members, who unlike myself, were using oxygen. No one else came.
Scott Fischer did not order me, nor did Sandy Pittman offer a "hefty" cash bonus to short-rope her to make it to the top. On ten other expeditions, I have short-roped any team member who has trouble. This year it was Sandy. I wanted to ensure that all group members had a good chance of making the summit. This was my goal, our team's goal. I worked very hard on this expedition and all members of my group would agree. I do not understand how Krakauer, involved in a different expedition, could write statements that judge my work habits or intentions.
With regard to the "Goldbrick" comment, you may wish to know that I netted $2,000 for this expedition, not to mention that fact that to save Sandy Pittman, I gave her my personal oxygen bottle on the way up, at 8,820 meters. I also carried an 80-pound load from Camp III to Camp IV the day prior to the summit bid, which included 30 pounds of other member's personal gear. There was no personal financial incentive for this. Money is not important for me. I always give my best, I am my father's only child and I have many uncles and family. We help each other and live very well in Kathmandu. To be described as a "Goldbrick" is completely false.
I was also referred to as a "showboat" to which I have this reply. Just below the summit of Everest, I anchored my ice ax and fixed a 15-meter rope at a dangerous spot so that all remaining team members could get down safely. I then waited for Scott to arrive. He finally arrived very late and we started down. Just as we reached my ice ax, Rob Hall and Doug Hansen were coming up my rope. After they passed, I sent Scott down and waited next to my ice ax in wind and extreme cold for them to summit and return so that they could get safely down. Once they were off my rope, I left and quickly caught Scott. From the South Summit I physically dragged him down through the storm until he could go no further. There I waited with Scott, determined to save him or die. Finally, he threatened me to save myself, saying he would jump off if I did not go down. I was, in fact, the last person to leave Scott Fischer and Makalu Gau that night. (Jon incorrectly states that three Sherpas were the last.)
In reference to the complaint about the fixing of the lines, let it be understood that on all expeditions, whoever goes first from Camp IV is supposed to fix ropes. Rob Hall's group left 45 minutes ahead of us. In my group there were two guides who were paid considerably more money than me—Anatoli (Boukreev) and Neal (Beidleman). That these strong professional guides sat on the South Summit waiting for "sherpas" or me to come up and fix lines for them seems ridiculous.
Krakauer makes references to my vomiting, implying that I was weak and unable to do my job; that it affected my performance. This too was wrong. I have been over 8,000 meters many times, and each time I vomit. It is just something that happens to me and has nothing to do with altitude sickness. I have done it on all expeditions. It just happens. I did it at Camp I, II, etc. On the way to the summit, Neal Beidleman saw me vomit and also misunderstood this. He took the load of ropes out of my pack and took off in the lead with Anatoli. I assumed they would fix lines for the group. My job then became that of seeing to the rest of the team, making sure they got to the summit. I in no way "lost sight of what I was supposed to be doing up there..." It would have been very bad for all three guides to go ahead and summit without the others. Again, I was doing my job. I thought that Neal and Anatoli were doing theirs. Also, if I was sick and weak, then why would I wait so long on the summit for Scott, Rob Hall and Doug Hansen? If I was sick and weak, how could I spend seven hours dragging Scott back down from the South Summit?
My name is misspelled and my age misrepresented. So you know, my name is Lopsang Jangbu Sherpa and I am 23 years old.
Finally, I express my profound condolences to the family and friends of the victims.
Respectfully,
Lopsang Jangbu Sherpa
Kathmandu, Nepal
Krakauer's response to Lopsang
Everest Revelation: A Clarification (Cont.)
Reply from Jon Krakauer
August 24, 1996
TO: Letters Editor, Outside Online
RE: Lopsang Jangbu's objections to "Into Thin Air"
I regret if Lopsang Jangbu Sherpa feels that he was "singled out as contributing to [the] tragic events" described in my Everest article. He was certainly no more culpable than any of us who were on the mountain last May; indeed, it should be remembered that Lopsang was paid only about $2,000 for his services, while most of the western guides received between $10,000 and $15,000, and guide Anatoli Boukreev received $25,000. I apologize if my article somehow implies that Lopsang was more to blame than anybody else.
Lopsang has another legitimate beef with me as well: Although I did question him on at least three occasions before writing my article (on May 12 at the Yellow Band above Camp III, on May 14 after the memorial service at Base Camp, and on June 8 at a memorial service for Scott Fischer in Seattle), none of these interviews were very fruitful. On May 12, for example, when I met an exhausted, emotionally devastated Lopsang descending the fixed ropes between Camp IV and Camp III, to all my questions Lopsang simply replied, near tears, "I am very bad luck, very bad luck. Scott is dead; it is my fault. I am very bad luck. It is my fault. I am very bad luck." It wasn't until July 25, when I had the opportunity to speak with Lopsang face to face for four hours in Seattle, that I heard his version of the tragedy in detail. And by that time my article had already gone to press.
During the long interview in Seattle, Lopsang insisted that Scott did not in fact order him to short-rope Sandy Pittman on May 10, nor was he offered money by Pittman as an incentive for assisting her to the summit (Lopsang did express mild surprise, however, that he received "no money, no thank you, nothing" from Pittman after the expedition for the help he provided her). Lopsang explained that he made the decision to short-rope Pittman entirely on his own, "because Scott wants all members to go to summit, and I am thinking Sandy will be weakest member, I am thinking she will be slow, so I will take her first." The prospect of receiving money from Pittman, he assured me, in no way entered into his decision. I thus stand corrected regarding Lopsang's motivation for short-roping Pittman. But the Seattle interview shed no new light on why he was helping Pittman in the early hours of May 10 instead of moving to the front of the pack to fix ropes according to the predetermined plan. Lopsang acknowledged that he left Camp IV at the front of Fischer's group, carrying two coils of rope to be fixed, but claimed that there was no plan in effect for him or any other Sherpas to fix ropes ahead of the clients.
I feel obliged to point out that one important assertion made by Lopsang in his Letter to the Editor is directly contradicted by statements he made to me, recorded on audio tape, during our long conversation on July 25: In his letter Lopsang denied that he was "sick and weak" on summit day. Yet during our Seattle interview Lobsang told me, "Every mountain I climb, I go first, I fix line. In `95 on Everest with Rob Hall I go first from base camp to summit, I fix all ropes. But this year on summit day I am tired and sick because [the day before] I am carrying 80 pounds, maybe 75 pounds, from Camp III to Camp IV, I am carrying Sandy's telephone. I am also very tired because [on summit day] I take up Sandy together on rope above Camp IV. I am too tired, I vomit, so I tell to Ang Dorje [Hall's sirdar], you fix line. He says OK. I tell to Neal [Beidleman], you take ropes from me."
Another complaint Lopsang made in his letter also requires clarification. He wrote, "Krakauer neglected to mention that on summit day of Rob Hall's 1995 Everest expedition, I broke trail through deep snow and then fixed ropes from the south summit to the top. There I waited for one hour for other team members, who unlike myself, were using oxygen. No one else came." This is certainly true. But Lopsang failed to explain why no one else came: Due to the lateness of the hour, Hall had turned everyone around just above the South Summit. Lopsang, at the head of the line, ignored the turn-around signal and went on to the summit alone, infuriating the usually imperturbable Hall. As Lopsang was sitting on the summit, Hall, guides Ed Viesturs and Guy Cotter, and the other Sherpas were desperately struggling to bring two severely ailing clients (one of whom, Chantal Mauduit, was stone-cold unconscious) down from the South Summit, and would have benefited greatly from Lopsang's assistance. Hall admonished Lopsang sharply for going to the summit alone, and subsequently decided not to offer Lopsang employment in 1996.
Lopsang is an extraordinarily gifted climber, with the potential to be one of the world's foremost high-altitude mountaineers. I respect and admire him tremendously for staying with the dying Fischer as long as he did, at considerable risk to his own life. Lopsang would be an asset to any expedition; I would climb with him anywhere. But at the age of 23, with only four years as a climbing Sherpa under his belt, he still has something to learn about judgment.
Jon Krakauer
Seattle
Reply from Jon Krakauer
August 24, 1996
TO: Letters Editor, Outside Online
RE: Lopsang Jangbu's objections to "Into Thin Air"
I regret if Lopsang Jangbu Sherpa feels that he was "singled out as contributing to [the] tragic events" described in my Everest article. He was certainly no more culpable than any of us who were on the mountain last May; indeed, it should be remembered that Lopsang was paid only about $2,000 for his services, while most of the western guides received between $10,000 and $15,000, and guide Anatoli Boukreev received $25,000. I apologize if my article somehow implies that Lopsang was more to blame than anybody else.
Lopsang has another legitimate beef with me as well: Although I did question him on at least three occasions before writing my article (on May 12 at the Yellow Band above Camp III, on May 14 after the memorial service at Base Camp, and on June 8 at a memorial service for Scott Fischer in Seattle), none of these interviews were very fruitful. On May 12, for example, when I met an exhausted, emotionally devastated Lopsang descending the fixed ropes between Camp IV and Camp III, to all my questions Lopsang simply replied, near tears, "I am very bad luck, very bad luck. Scott is dead; it is my fault. I am very bad luck. It is my fault. I am very bad luck." It wasn't until July 25, when I had the opportunity to speak with Lopsang face to face for four hours in Seattle, that I heard his version of the tragedy in detail. And by that time my article had already gone to press.
During the long interview in Seattle, Lopsang insisted that Scott did not in fact order him to short-rope Sandy Pittman on May 10, nor was he offered money by Pittman as an incentive for assisting her to the summit (Lopsang did express mild surprise, however, that he received "no money, no thank you, nothing" from Pittman after the expedition for the help he provided her). Lopsang explained that he made the decision to short-rope Pittman entirely on his own, "because Scott wants all members to go to summit, and I am thinking Sandy will be weakest member, I am thinking she will be slow, so I will take her first." The prospect of receiving money from Pittman, he assured me, in no way entered into his decision. I thus stand corrected regarding Lopsang's motivation for short-roping Pittman. But the Seattle interview shed no new light on why he was helping Pittman in the early hours of May 10 instead of moving to the front of the pack to fix ropes according to the predetermined plan. Lopsang acknowledged that he left Camp IV at the front of Fischer's group, carrying two coils of rope to be fixed, but claimed that there was no plan in effect for him or any other Sherpas to fix ropes ahead of the clients.
I feel obliged to point out that one important assertion made by Lopsang in his Letter to the Editor is directly contradicted by statements he made to me, recorded on audio tape, during our long conversation on July 25: In his letter Lopsang denied that he was "sick and weak" on summit day. Yet during our Seattle interview Lobsang told me, "Every mountain I climb, I go first, I fix line. In `95 on Everest with Rob Hall I go first from base camp to summit, I fix all ropes. But this year on summit day I am tired and sick because [the day before] I am carrying 80 pounds, maybe 75 pounds, from Camp III to Camp IV, I am carrying Sandy's telephone. I am also very tired because [on summit day] I take up Sandy together on rope above Camp IV. I am too tired, I vomit, so I tell to Ang Dorje [Hall's sirdar], you fix line. He says OK. I tell to Neal [Beidleman], you take ropes from me."
Another complaint Lopsang made in his letter also requires clarification. He wrote, "Krakauer neglected to mention that on summit day of Rob Hall's 1995 Everest expedition, I broke trail through deep snow and then fixed ropes from the south summit to the top. There I waited for one hour for other team members, who unlike myself, were using oxygen. No one else came." This is certainly true. But Lopsang failed to explain why no one else came: Due to the lateness of the hour, Hall had turned everyone around just above the South Summit. Lopsang, at the head of the line, ignored the turn-around signal and went on to the summit alone, infuriating the usually imperturbable Hall. As Lopsang was sitting on the summit, Hall, guides Ed Viesturs and Guy Cotter, and the other Sherpas were desperately struggling to bring two severely ailing clients (one of whom, Chantal Mauduit, was stone-cold unconscious) down from the South Summit, and would have benefited greatly from Lopsang's assistance. Hall admonished Lopsang sharply for going to the summit alone, and subsequently decided not to offer Lopsang employment in 1996.
Lopsang is an extraordinarily gifted climber, with the potential to be one of the world's foremost high-altitude mountaineers. I respect and admire him tremendously for staying with the dying Fischer as long as he did, at considerable risk to his own life. Lopsang would be an asset to any expedition; I would climb with him anywhere. But at the age of 23, with only four years as a climbing Sherpa under his belt, he still has something to learn about judgment.
Jon Krakauer
Seattle
Week 51, Day 2
Raining today, and I arrived home sopping wet. I actually got off one stop too early,and rather than fork out W1500 (about R8.00) for a taxi ride home, I figured, well I'm wet anyway (from the walk to catch the bus), so I might as well leg it.
The rain was actually quite warm.
Some interesting classes today. Most are interested and really well behaved, and the lessons are becoming abit more cohesive and tight, but there are about 3 classes where it's a combination of the kids just lacking discipline and also not having much of a clue about English so all they hear is blah blah blah.
Corneli went to the doctor who diagnosed her with a brochial infection, and has put her on antibiotics.
I'm supposed to move tomorrow and am not really ready or packed. I guess I will do it in phases. First bike stuff, then clothes, then books and arb stuff. Looking forward to being done in that department, but not looking forward to the actual process.
The book I am reading now seemed like it would be fairly dull (as SIMPLICITY turned out). It's called THE WORLD IS FLAT and is about some of the interesting consequences of globalisation. What makes it quite an ironic read is that all these changes are poised, but at the same time, it seems with the advent of Peak Oil, globalisation is going to lead reverse changes, conflicts and so on. I think the bible story, the Tower of Babel, is a very powerful cautionary tale about the empire getting too vast, too tall, too topheavy, and finally the diverse mix within it tear it apart (the metaphor of the different languages).
I also wonder whether the pyramids, and Maya temples and civilisation that lie derelict in the jungle should not caution us....that powerful and sophisticated people have existed several times in the earth's history band suddenly, very quickly, been wiped out. I think what wiped them out was subtle and implicit, nothing they expected. I think their success, in each and every case, was part of their doom. Growth in the numbers of people and industry meant that a power supply had to be created, and used, and the Energy eventually could not keep up with the population. Once the energy supply ran out, the result is just squabbling over what is left until the group is eventually decimiated or leaves to go to some other community that is at least able to feed and organise itself.
I had these thoughts when watching where the next Survivor episode will be shot. All that intelligence to build those temples, and yet they could not manage their own greed and industry.
Nature has a way of balancing itself out, and their's no such thing as amnesty in the great Cycle of Life. There is just the pendulum swing, crashing through all the debris we have piled up on her wet hillsides and her dry riverbeds.
I meant to run and swim today...this week needs to be the initiation of training again. The rain's put pay to that. Will see if I can get a swim in tomorrow.
And now for some wine...
The rain was actually quite warm.
Some interesting classes today. Most are interested and really well behaved, and the lessons are becoming abit more cohesive and tight, but there are about 3 classes where it's a combination of the kids just lacking discipline and also not having much of a clue about English so all they hear is blah blah blah.
Corneli went to the doctor who diagnosed her with a brochial infection, and has put her on antibiotics.
I'm supposed to move tomorrow and am not really ready or packed. I guess I will do it in phases. First bike stuff, then clothes, then books and arb stuff. Looking forward to being done in that department, but not looking forward to the actual process.
The book I am reading now seemed like it would be fairly dull (as SIMPLICITY turned out). It's called THE WORLD IS FLAT and is about some of the interesting consequences of globalisation. What makes it quite an ironic read is that all these changes are poised, but at the same time, it seems with the advent of Peak Oil, globalisation is going to lead reverse changes, conflicts and so on. I think the bible story, the Tower of Babel, is a very powerful cautionary tale about the empire getting too vast, too tall, too topheavy, and finally the diverse mix within it tear it apart (the metaphor of the different languages).
I also wonder whether the pyramids, and Maya temples and civilisation that lie derelict in the jungle should not caution us....that powerful and sophisticated people have existed several times in the earth's history band suddenly, very quickly, been wiped out. I think what wiped them out was subtle and implicit, nothing they expected. I think their success, in each and every case, was part of their doom. Growth in the numbers of people and industry meant that a power supply had to be created, and used, and the Energy eventually could not keep up with the population. Once the energy supply ran out, the result is just squabbling over what is left until the group is eventually decimiated or leaves to go to some other community that is at least able to feed and organise itself.
I had these thoughts when watching where the next Survivor episode will be shot. All that intelligence to build those temples, and yet they could not manage their own greed and industry.
Nature has a way of balancing itself out, and their's no such thing as amnesty in the great Cycle of Life. There is just the pendulum swing, crashing through all the debris we have piled up on her wet hillsides and her dry riverbeds.
I meant to run and swim today...this week needs to be the initiation of training again. The rain's put pay to that. Will see if I can get a swim in tomorrow.
And now for some wine...
Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com
"One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit," Harry G. Frankfurt writes, in what must surely be the most eyebrow-raising opener in modern philosophical prose. "Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted." This compact little book, as pungent as the phenomenon it explores, attempts to articulate a theory of this contemporary scourge--what it is, what it does, and why there's so much of it. The result is entertaining and enlightening in almost equal measure. It can't be denied; part of the book's charm is the puerile pleasure of reading classic academic discourse punctuated at regular intervals by the word "bullshit." More pertinent is Frankfurt's focus on intentions--the practice of bullshit, rather than its end result. Bullshitting, as he notes, is not exactly lying, and bullshit remains bullshit whether it's true or false. The difference lies in the bullshitter's complete disregard for whether what he's saying corresponds to facts in the physical world: he "does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are."
This may sound all too familiar to those of use who still live in the "reality-based community" and must deal with a world convulsed by those who do not. But Frankfurt leaves such political implications to his readers. Instead, he points to one source of bullshit's unprecedented expansion in recent years, the postmodern skepticism of objective truth in favor of sincerity, or as he defines it, staying true to subjective experience. But what makes us think that anything in our nature is more stable or inherent than what lies outside it? Thus, Frankfurt concludes, with an observation as tiny and perfect as the rest of this exquisite book, "sincerity itself is bullshit." --Mary Park
The Seoul EU Film Festival is held from May 14 to 19 at the Cine Cube in Gwanghwamun. EU member nations' embassies to Korea organized this festival to help foster an understanding of European cultures. Fifteen films from 15 European countries will be shown at two times. The screening list includes: "The Five Obstructions" (Denmark), "November" (Spain), "Changing Time" (France), "The Third Night" (Greece), "The Miracle" (Italia), "On the Other Side of the Bridge" (Austria), "Loners" (Czech), "Distant Lights" (Germany), "Double Exile" (Portugal), "As White as in Snow" (Sweden), "Twin Sisters" (Netherlands), "Bread and Roses" (England), "Day of the Wacko" (Poland), "Pacho, Brigand of Hybe" (Slovakia), and "The Emperor's Wife" (Belgium). All the films offer both Korean and English subtitles. The venue can be reached by Exit 6, Gwanghwamun Station, Line 5.
Star Wars, Iraq, and the state of the world
Without Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11 at the Cannes Film Festival this time, it was left to George Lucas and Star Wars to highlight European pique over the state of world relations and America’s role in it.
Lucas’ themes of democracy on the skids and a ruler preaching war to preserve the peace predate Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith by almost 30 years. Yet viewers yesterday – and Lucas himself – noted similarities between the final chapter of his sci-fi saga and our own troubled times.
Cannes audiences made blunt comparisons between Revenge of the Sith – the story of Anakin Skywalker’s fall to the dark side and the rise of an emperor through warmongering – to President Bush’s war on terrorism and the invasion of Iraq.
Two lines from the movie especially resonated:
“This is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause,” bemoans Padme Amidala (Natalie Portman) as the galactic Senate cheers dictator-in-waiting Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) while he announces a crusade against the Jedi.
“If you’re not with me, then you’re my enemy,” Hayden Christensen’s Anakin - soon to become villain Darth Vader – tells former mentor Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor). The line echoes Bush’s international ultimatum after the Sept. 11 attacks, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”
The film opens on Wednesday in parts of Europe and on Thursday in the US and many other countries. At the Cannes premiere last night, actors in white stormtrooper costumes paraded up and down the red carpet as guests strolled in, while an orchestra played the Star Wars theme.
Lucas said he patterned his story after historical transformations from freedom to fascism, never figuring when he started his prequel trilogy in the late 1990s that current events might parallel his space fantasy.
“As you go through history, I didn’t think it was going to get quite this close. So it’s just one of those recurring things,” Lucas said at a Cannes news conference. ”I hope this doesn’t come true in our country.
“Maybe the film will waken people to the situation,” Lucas joked.
That comment echoes Moore’s rhetoric at Cannes last year, when his anti-Bush documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 won the festival’s top honour.
Unlike Moore, Lucas never mentioned the president by name but was eager to speak his mind on US policy in Iraq, careful again to note that he created the story long before the Bush-led occupation there.
“When I wrote it, Iraq didn’t exist,” Lucas said, laughing. “We were just funding Saddam Hussein and giving him weapons of mass destruction. We didn’t think of him as an enemy at that time. We were going after Iran and using him as our surrogate, just as we were doing in Vietnam. … The parallels between what we did in Vietnam and what we’re doing in Iraq now are unbelievable.”
http://www.examiner.ie/breaking/story.asp?
j=141048576&p=y4yx49z7z&n=141049371&x=
Training Plan W1-W14
Week 1
R – Tues (am) R- Thurs (pm) – R – Fri (am)
S – Tues (12:00 – 13:00)/ Wed (12:00-13:00) Fri (12:00-13:00)
C - Thurs (1 hr cycle around park…test commute)/Sunday Imjingak
R3/S3/C2
Daegu Triathlon 2005-05-21 ~ 2005-05-22
Week 2
Run 4/S2/C2
(running – 1 distance – 1 hills – 1 recovery (short and easy) 1 distance
Week 3
Run 3/S3/C3
1 x 100km cycle
Tongyeong 2005-06-05 ~ 2005-06-06
W4 R5/S4/C2
3rd Jeju Superman Triathlon - Seongsan, Jeju (s3k, b140k, r30k) 2005-06-05
W5 R4/S4/C3
W6 C2/R2/S2
Seorak 2005.06.25
Aim for 2:05
S 23
C 1h
R 40
W7 C4/R3/S4
W8 R5/C3/S3
W9 R4/C3/S4
W10 R2/C1/S2
Cheolwon 2005-07-24
Aim for 4:29 (4:50 last year)
S 30
C 2h 20
R 1h 39
W11 R3/C3
W12 R2/S3/C1
Uljin 2005-08-06
W13 R4/C3/S3
W14 R3/C2/S2
W15 R2/C1/S1
Ironman Korea 2005-08-28
Laguna Phuket 2005-12-04 at 8am
jkim555@seoulsynergy.com
MAY 2005
05/29 10th Sea day marathon, half, 10Km, 5Km (Yoido, Seoul)
JUN 2005
06/05 7th JeonMaHyup half, 10Km, 5Km (Yoido, Seoul)
06/19 11th SAKA Seoul Half, 10Km, 5Km, Couple 5Km (Yoido, Seoul)
JUL 2005
07/02 Jeonmahyup Marathon Summer Camp 30Km, 10Km, 5Km (Buan-Kun)
07/10 Amahyup dawn river side Half Marathon, Half Marathon and 5Km (Yoido, Seoul)
07/17 3rd Boryung 10Km Run (Boryung City)
AUG 2005
08/07 2005 Samchuk beach SAKA half, 10Km, 5Km, couple 5Km (Samchuk city)
08/12 2005 Korea marathon summer camp, half (YaeDang)
08/20 1st Busan Summer Beach Ultra Marathon (100Km, 60Km) (Haeundae, Busan City)
08/21 18th 8.15 SAKA half, 10Km, 5Km, couple 5Km (MokChong city)
08/28 4th HAM Ganghwa ultra marathon 100Km, 65Km (Ganghwado)
08/29 2nd Young Dong Grape half, 10Km, 5Km (Young Dong Kun)
SEP 2005
09/04 5th Int'l Tourism Seoul Marathon Marathon, Half, 10Km, 5Km (Seoul)
09/04 2nd DMZ Peace Half Marathon Marathon, Half, 10Km, 5Km (Cheolwon-Kun)
09/11 SAKA half, 10Km, 5Km, couple 5Km (Jamsil, Seoul)
09/11 3rd AMaHyop Chusok half, 10Km, 5Km (Yoido, Seoul)
09/25 2005 4th Gyongsan marathon, half, 10Km (Youngnam Univ. Taegu)
09/25 KyongHwang newspaper 2nd Ulsan marathon, half, 10Km, 5Km (Ulsan city)
09/25 SumJin river marathon, half, 10Km, 5Km (GokSeong-Kun)
OCT 2005
10/01 7th SAKA relay (?) marathon (Dorasan St.)
10/02 3rd Hi Seoul Han river marathon, half, 10Km (Yoido, Seoul)
10/02 7th Mun Hwa Il Bo reunion marathon, half, 10Km, 5Km (PaJu city)
10/02 4th Busan sea half, 10Km (Busan city)
10/03 2005 Int'l peace marathon, half, 10Km, 5Km (Olympic St. Seoul)
10/16 2nd BuAn SAKA half, 10Km, 5Km, couple 5Km (BuAn-Kun)
10/23 2005 Chunchon Marathon (Full course only) (Chonchon city)
NOV 2005
11/13 5th AnSeong half, 10Km, 5Km (AnSeong city)
11/13 3rd Sang Ju Gok Gam half, 10Km, 5Km (SangJu city)
11/20 SAKA 20 years anniversary half, 10Km, 5Km, couple 5Km (Olympic St. Seoul)
11/20 4rd Amahyop river side half, 10Km (Yeoido, Seoul)
11/20 2nd Ulsan human rights half, 10Km, 5Km (Ulsan city)
11/20 3rd GoChang GoInDol half, 10Km, 5Km (Gochang-Kun)
11/27 4th Han river marathon, half, 10km, 5Km (Yoido, Seoul)
11/27 2005 Jejudo orange marathon, half, 10Km, 5Km (Jejudo)
Sporting Goals:
1)Ironman – 9:59
Swim 0:55 1km=15minutes 4.15km/h
Cycle 5:10 1m: 43sec p km 34.83km/h 1km <2min
Run 3:40 5m: 10sec p km 11.5km/h 1:50 - 21km/55min - 10km
R – Tues (am) R- Thurs (pm) – R – Fri (am)
S – Tues (12:00 – 13:00)/ Wed (12:00-13:00) Fri (12:00-13:00)
C - Thurs (1 hr cycle around park…test commute)/Sunday Imjingak
R3/S3/C2
Daegu Triathlon 2005-05-21 ~ 2005-05-22
Week 2
Run 4/S2/C2
(running – 1 distance – 1 hills – 1 recovery (short and easy) 1 distance
Week 3
Run 3/S3/C3
1 x 100km cycle
Tongyeong 2005-06-05 ~ 2005-06-06
W4 R5/S4/C2
3rd Jeju Superman Triathlon - Seongsan, Jeju (s3k, b140k, r30k) 2005-06-05
W5 R4/S4/C3
W6 C2/R2/S2
Seorak 2005.06.25
Aim for 2:05
S 23
C 1h
R 40
W7 C4/R3/S4
W8 R5/C3/S3
W9 R4/C3/S4
W10 R2/C1/S2
Cheolwon 2005-07-24
Aim for 4:29 (4:50 last year)
S 30
C 2h 20
R 1h 39
W11 R3/C3
W12 R2/S3/C1
Uljin 2005-08-06
W13 R4/C3/S3
W14 R3/C2/S2
W15 R2/C1/S1
Ironman Korea 2005-08-28
Laguna Phuket 2005-12-04 at 8am
jkim555@seoulsynergy.com
MAY 2005
05/29 10th Sea day marathon, half, 10Km, 5Km (Yoido, Seoul)
JUN 2005
06/05 7th JeonMaHyup half, 10Km, 5Km (Yoido, Seoul)
06/19 11th SAKA Seoul Half, 10Km, 5Km, Couple 5Km (Yoido, Seoul)
JUL 2005
07/02 Jeonmahyup Marathon Summer Camp 30Km, 10Km, 5Km (Buan-Kun)
07/10 Amahyup dawn river side Half Marathon, Half Marathon and 5Km (Yoido, Seoul)
07/17 3rd Boryung 10Km Run (Boryung City)
AUG 2005
08/07 2005 Samchuk beach SAKA half, 10Km, 5Km, couple 5Km (Samchuk city)
08/12 2005 Korea marathon summer camp, half (YaeDang)
08/20 1st Busan Summer Beach Ultra Marathon (100Km, 60Km) (Haeundae, Busan City)
08/21 18th 8.15 SAKA half, 10Km, 5Km, couple 5Km (MokChong city)
08/28 4th HAM Ganghwa ultra marathon 100Km, 65Km (Ganghwado)
08/29 2nd Young Dong Grape half, 10Km, 5Km (Young Dong Kun)
SEP 2005
09/04 5th Int'l Tourism Seoul Marathon Marathon, Half, 10Km, 5Km (Seoul)
09/04 2nd DMZ Peace Half Marathon Marathon, Half, 10Km, 5Km (Cheolwon-Kun)
09/11 SAKA half, 10Km, 5Km, couple 5Km (Jamsil, Seoul)
09/11 3rd AMaHyop Chusok half, 10Km, 5Km (Yoido, Seoul)
09/25 2005 4th Gyongsan marathon, half, 10Km (Youngnam Univ. Taegu)
09/25 KyongHwang newspaper 2nd Ulsan marathon, half, 10Km, 5Km (Ulsan city)
09/25 SumJin river marathon, half, 10Km, 5Km (GokSeong-Kun)
OCT 2005
10/01 7th SAKA relay (?) marathon (Dorasan St.)
10/02 3rd Hi Seoul Han river marathon, half, 10Km (Yoido, Seoul)
10/02 7th Mun Hwa Il Bo reunion marathon, half, 10Km, 5Km (PaJu city)
10/02 4th Busan sea half, 10Km (Busan city)
10/03 2005 Int'l peace marathon, half, 10Km, 5Km (Olympic St. Seoul)
10/16 2nd BuAn SAKA half, 10Km, 5Km, couple 5Km (BuAn-Kun)
10/23 2005 Chunchon Marathon (Full course only) (Chonchon city)
NOV 2005
11/13 5th AnSeong half, 10Km, 5Km (AnSeong city)
11/13 3rd Sang Ju Gok Gam half, 10Km, 5Km (SangJu city)
11/20 SAKA 20 years anniversary half, 10Km, 5Km, couple 5Km (Olympic St. Seoul)
11/20 4rd Amahyop river side half, 10Km (Yeoido, Seoul)
11/20 2nd Ulsan human rights half, 10Km, 5Km (Ulsan city)
11/20 3rd GoChang GoInDol half, 10Km, 5Km (Gochang-Kun)
11/27 4th Han river marathon, half, 10km, 5Km (Yoido, Seoul)
11/27 2005 Jejudo orange marathon, half, 10Km, 5Km (Jejudo)
Sporting Goals:
1)Ironman – 9:59
Swim 0:55 1km=15minutes 4.15km/h
Cycle 5:10 1m: 43sec p km 34.83km/h 1km <2min
Run 3:40 5m: 10sec p km 11.5km/h 1:50 - 21km/55min - 10km
Monday, May 16, 2005
Week 51, Blackout
The good news is I got a couple of emails from home, including my dad, who provided me with his account number. I also transferred money again, at a very favorable rate, which means I may yet recoup the lost dough that got siphoned off the last transfer.
Survivor is playing on TV now...it's between Tom and Kat. I hope Tom wins.
He does! We should start a Survivor Show on our farm, and film it, and have groups of university students compete against each other...or something.
School was a bit weird today. The power went out about 6 times, each time for no more than about 6-7 minutes. Really struggled to stay awake.
I'm lucky ton have some really sweet colleagues around me, and they're all certainly nice to look at too. Unfortunately only two of them can speak fairly fluently, but everyone has a fun spirit, and there's aready a good camaraderie.
My legs and arms felt sore from yesterday's exertions in the park. That's a sign that I've really atrophied, so I'd like to get that turned around now.
Survivor is playing on TV now...it's between Tom and Kat. I hope Tom wins.
He does! We should start a Survivor Show on our farm, and film it, and have groups of university students compete against each other...or something.
School was a bit weird today. The power went out about 6 times, each time for no more than about 6-7 minutes. Really struggled to stay awake.
I'm lucky ton have some really sweet colleagues around me, and they're all certainly nice to look at too. Unfortunately only two of them can speak fairly fluently, but everyone has a fun spirit, and there's aready a good camaraderie.
My legs and arms felt sore from yesterday's exertions in the park. That's a sign that I've really atrophied, so I'd like to get that turned around now.
Who Is Your God?
You are entitled to your beliefs, and what is written here is not meant to be a challenge to them. Perhaps my beliefs, as provided below will provide a complement, or a supplement, to what you already believe. If so or not, that's fine.
Is it possible to have any description of a Higher power, an Everpresent being, a Creator, without being subjective? Can any of us claim to be objective, to be the holders of Highest Truth? I don't believe so, and I don't believe others' subscriptions, whatever their experience, are any better or worse than any other. I believe we all arrive at our own answers, but the quality of those answers differ, possibly as a result of the quality and context of our search, for truth, or ourselves, or for relief from pain or anxiety. So my claims, my beliefs, are not meant to be seen as truths I expect anyone else to follow or abide by. But they may provide a few insights into your own. This seems to me to be a vital point of departure, when considering religious or spiritual ideas, an openness to ideas and philosophies, and the potential to embrace others, not to compete with them.
In the same way that ideas should flow in the embrace of those who find them useful, God flows in the relationship that I have with God, and indirectly, through others having their personal relationship with God, and their relationship with me. The extent of this is an unlimited bulb of light, of energy, taking and adapting to various forms.
In more concrete terms God is our connection to each other, and also to all things, rocks, beetles, trees and elephants. The same colors and skins that clothe flowers and feathers, flow through our eyes and fingernails. This is not just romantic, it has real implications. If we are connected to God, inherently, implicitly, then God is not separate from us, but part of us, and we, part of God. That is an exciting reality. Think about it! Feel the reality! This means that God functions through us, creating (since Creation still explodes forth) through our actions, bringing about balances and imbalances through our conscious and unconscious application of energy. Since we are connected to God, some responsibility exists for us to care for, protect and consider the safety and survival of (ie love) both ourselves, and others, and our world, since we are co-creators of all. And thus in that sence, God does not exist, as something separate from us, who we can cry to for salvation, for separate acts of redemption and especially for fulfillment in emergencies. We can only blame ourselves, and gnash our own teeth for separating ourselves from the Truth, or ask others to be agents for our own reconciliation back to health or justice(doctors, lawyers etc).
I believe that all our actions create consequences, including all suffering and pleasure. I believe cancer is not accidental, but a product of lifestyle, and many other things that appear random. Car accidents, murders, war, all these are consented to at some level either always by individuals, often by individuals consenting as groups, which can be more powerful. If we have the capacity to use our consciousness, to focus our thoughts and energies, especially our emotions and actions on altruism, on sharing and unselfish behaviour, it is possible that we can bring ourselves out of harms way. The afflictions we suffer are the rim of the world's kindness, falling in, and we all contribute to the consciousness of the world, and the total goodness that comes out of the world. This consciousness is the two way process that moves between ourselves and God, and sometimes our own access to it is limited (due to our own distractions) and sometimes it is highly conscious, and powerful.
Coincidences are the results of consciousness.
It is possible that in rare cases, random events do occur, or seem to be random. These are probably exceptional, and can probably be explained by preceding actions (say of parents that are borne out in the child's life). If random actions do happen, maybe they are based in the area of insanity that morphs the consciousness of some around us into what is, finally, a manifestation that is somewhat inexplicable. But even insanity is rooted in genetics (inbreeding) and poor dietary habits, and even occasionally in poor mental discipline (ie the inability to follow a diet of the mind).
The Now, is a useful analogy for God. That we exist in the eternal moment, and so do all other things, and together, we contribute to this moment, it's unthinking wisdom, it's unrepeatable energy and content, it's unique and powerful pattern. The Now evokes the necessity for action and consciousness. The past and future do not exist, except as lower levels of consciousness, imbued with our emotions, and thus liable to be repeated. Memory also survives in consciousness, and this is where we may find ourselves, or lose ourselves, whether or not we dwell in the present, in ways that serve others (or ourselves) or not.
Jesus Christ is a manifestation of this, but not the exclusive manifestation. I believe most of the bible to be true, and profoundly true, because it is the embodiment of the Highest Consciousness. Some of the interpretations, such as Christianity being the exclusive domain of Truth, I believe to be erroneous. Christianity is a domain of truth, and salvation, but it is not the only one. All the other religions are efforts to interpret that which cannot be finally and completely expressed. Some, arguably, do a better job than others, and are more popular as a result. Religions in any event can only exist within the framework of languages (spoken, written, read and listened to) and thus religions as we know them are a fairly recent social innovation or organisation based on fairly recent technology - the technology of language.
Obviously before language, none of the religions that are described by them even existed, but relatives, progenitors, did, such as paganism and so on that have influenced Christianity as the practical Romans used this powerful and successful new system called Christianity to organise their world, their laws and culture in their new domains. And so began the Roman Catholic Church.
It can be experienced and it can be felt, through our sense of being, through our consciousness, through our own revelations as to our identities, purposes and philosophies as a group of inspired creatures on the Earth.
Understanding God and ourselves accurately presupposes our using our imaginations on an enormously diverse array of related and seemingly unrelated areas. Everything effects everything else. So to have a useful belief, we need to consider a considerable number of things interacting, in nonlinear ways sometimes, over a considerable period of time (which is linear the way we think about time).
Then there is a magical realisation of Now, what Now is, and how it and we came into being. This is a simpler but less rational approach.
God has appeared in our image, and we have made God into our image as well. But God is beyond both. If it is helpful to understand God as a singular being, with a name, a certain style or dress, a period in which he or she lived and did specific things as examples on how we should live, then that is useful.
I have had moments when I believed in the existence of God, and moments when I did not. I've had moments when life after death seemed certain, and moments when it seemed unnatural, and implausible. I see that energy is conserved, is not destroyed, but can alter its state. My own experience of my own energy suggests something intransigent, something eternal, about my inner reservoir of energy. This seems to aid in an explanation where my soul seems to be part of God, but also, to an extent, just a single cellular expression in the great organism that functions as a single sentient being. That wisdom and power flows through me, and my vitality, back into it. Sometimes the poisons and toxins and excrement flows into me, and I have to recycle these or redistribute them.
God is about balance, connection, consciousness and tremendous explosions of energy. Balance means that even what we consider negative, evil, sickly, bad, wrong, are part of God, and part of our existence. In the movie The Matrix, (the anomaly) Neo's power is directly proportional and in a way responsible for Agent Smith (his antithesis, a virus). In Star Wars, Darth Vader is both the unbalancer and the restorer of balance (through his son) of the universe, importantly, through a subscriptiuon to the same source of power, The Force.
I am somewhat sceptical of the usefulness of religion, as defined, specific arrangements of people with prescribed beliefs. Particularly where aspects can be powerfully brought to bear on populations to get them to engage in wars and genocide. I would like a more thorough study of statistics, but it seems that war often gains support from its religious base, even though the real reasons are the pursuit of scarcity by the elites and leaders who know how to manipulate their less conscious subscribers.
In some cases though personal relationships with God are powerful, and powerfully expressed and experienced. In these cases it appears that 'God as a person' works effectively. Whether this is true in a group scale is debatable, particularly where fundamentalism, and hubris have done much to prove otherwise.
For me, God's existence is predicated on the results of our combined actions, emotions and thoughts, though we experience the unfolding of these three states first in the reverse order (acting often mostly out of a subconscious state) and then when we interpret actions, especially our own, where we take responsibility, and become accountable for our connection to God and God's actions over the earth, then the flow moves inward at a higher state of consciuousness, and finally outward again in a much more enlightened state. Obviously these patterns occur in infinite patterns, and this is the simple and complex and beautiful reality we call Now.
While I subscribe to 99% of what Christians believe, and also basically classify myself as a Christian, I see a fundamental and exclusive view (the 1% I don't agree with) as representing the crucial area where we compete with other groups for the Highest Truth, and rationalise war and destruction for this Greater Good. In the case of Infinite War (as in the Middle East), where two groups insist unto death that their belief is right (instead of realising that not one is better, but both are from the same truth) it may be better to take a long term view, and dismantle the mythic personalities, or some of the coda at least, that define religions.
God is in my belief a God of this world. Heaven is on Earth, and so is hell. A good road to begin, if you feel your faith is unshakeable, and unteachable, is to pursue this simple step: imagine the reality of heaven. Where is it? If you go there immediately, how and where would you go, and what exactly would you find. Conscious reasoning shows that Heaven is a state, a condition, a perfect experiece. I'm sure this is what we experience here, and I believe we can encounter the same in a below physical state (which comprises most of the universe, which is also beyond the visual spectrum). It is a great tragedy to pursue a dream that begins after we are dead, because in this philosophy, we might do great harm to ourselves and others (as was done in the name of Communism), and may lead ourselves and our world to ruin.
And I don't pretend to understand the Mystery that is God. There are many dimensions, of space and time, and perhaps even reincarnations, where we return again and again until we have the consciousness to get to a higher level. The idea of a simultaneous multidimensional co-operative reality, based on a sort of Game Level premise, and a Matrix-like philosophy, is baffling but possible. Since each person manifests our own reality, this provides one explanation for our unique experience of God. But the great Mystery that is God seems to me to be revealed best in the way all things are connected. Science to Faith, Creation to Evolotion, Man to Women, Light to Darkness, Good to Evil, Goverments to Terrorism. It is useful to find those things that support, that are related to, that connect with the other thing that is different, than on focussing on the disparities.
It is easier to solve a Mystery by examining and if possible, synergising all the divergent data into a cohesive whole, something that is digestable and perhaps comprehensible. Currently, our either or appraoch, black or white, is entirely too exclusive and limiting, and leads us to duality. Duality is a reality, but a really troubling, and lonely one. There is a greater reality, one in which we can participate, as individuals, as individuals conscious of God, and as a collection of consciousness (individuals conscious of ourselves, each other and God in all), which is the highest consciousness, which is God (and ourselves) operating in Harmony.
Is it possible to have any description of a Higher power, an Everpresent being, a Creator, without being subjective? Can any of us claim to be objective, to be the holders of Highest Truth? I don't believe so, and I don't believe others' subscriptions, whatever their experience, are any better or worse than any other. I believe we all arrive at our own answers, but the quality of those answers differ, possibly as a result of the quality and context of our search, for truth, or ourselves, or for relief from pain or anxiety. So my claims, my beliefs, are not meant to be seen as truths I expect anyone else to follow or abide by. But they may provide a few insights into your own. This seems to me to be a vital point of departure, when considering religious or spiritual ideas, an openness to ideas and philosophies, and the potential to embrace others, not to compete with them.
In the same way that ideas should flow in the embrace of those who find them useful, God flows in the relationship that I have with God, and indirectly, through others having their personal relationship with God, and their relationship with me. The extent of this is an unlimited bulb of light, of energy, taking and adapting to various forms.
In more concrete terms God is our connection to each other, and also to all things, rocks, beetles, trees and elephants. The same colors and skins that clothe flowers and feathers, flow through our eyes and fingernails. This is not just romantic, it has real implications. If we are connected to God, inherently, implicitly, then God is not separate from us, but part of us, and we, part of God. That is an exciting reality. Think about it! Feel the reality! This means that God functions through us, creating (since Creation still explodes forth) through our actions, bringing about balances and imbalances through our conscious and unconscious application of energy. Since we are connected to God, some responsibility exists for us to care for, protect and consider the safety and survival of (ie love) both ourselves, and others, and our world, since we are co-creators of all. And thus in that sence, God does not exist, as something separate from us, who we can cry to for salvation, for separate acts of redemption and especially for fulfillment in emergencies. We can only blame ourselves, and gnash our own teeth for separating ourselves from the Truth, or ask others to be agents for our own reconciliation back to health or justice(doctors, lawyers etc).
I believe that all our actions create consequences, including all suffering and pleasure. I believe cancer is not accidental, but a product of lifestyle, and many other things that appear random. Car accidents, murders, war, all these are consented to at some level either always by individuals, often by individuals consenting as groups, which can be more powerful. If we have the capacity to use our consciousness, to focus our thoughts and energies, especially our emotions and actions on altruism, on sharing and unselfish behaviour, it is possible that we can bring ourselves out of harms way. The afflictions we suffer are the rim of the world's kindness, falling in, and we all contribute to the consciousness of the world, and the total goodness that comes out of the world. This consciousness is the two way process that moves between ourselves and God, and sometimes our own access to it is limited (due to our own distractions) and sometimes it is highly conscious, and powerful.
Coincidences are the results of consciousness.
It is possible that in rare cases, random events do occur, or seem to be random. These are probably exceptional, and can probably be explained by preceding actions (say of parents that are borne out in the child's life). If random actions do happen, maybe they are based in the area of insanity that morphs the consciousness of some around us into what is, finally, a manifestation that is somewhat inexplicable. But even insanity is rooted in genetics (inbreeding) and poor dietary habits, and even occasionally in poor mental discipline (ie the inability to follow a diet of the mind).
The Now, is a useful analogy for God. That we exist in the eternal moment, and so do all other things, and together, we contribute to this moment, it's unthinking wisdom, it's unrepeatable energy and content, it's unique and powerful pattern. The Now evokes the necessity for action and consciousness. The past and future do not exist, except as lower levels of consciousness, imbued with our emotions, and thus liable to be repeated. Memory also survives in consciousness, and this is where we may find ourselves, or lose ourselves, whether or not we dwell in the present, in ways that serve others (or ourselves) or not.
Jesus Christ is a manifestation of this, but not the exclusive manifestation. I believe most of the bible to be true, and profoundly true, because it is the embodiment of the Highest Consciousness. Some of the interpretations, such as Christianity being the exclusive domain of Truth, I believe to be erroneous. Christianity is a domain of truth, and salvation, but it is not the only one. All the other religions are efforts to interpret that which cannot be finally and completely expressed. Some, arguably, do a better job than others, and are more popular as a result. Religions in any event can only exist within the framework of languages (spoken, written, read and listened to) and thus religions as we know them are a fairly recent social innovation or organisation based on fairly recent technology - the technology of language.
Obviously before language, none of the religions that are described by them even existed, but relatives, progenitors, did, such as paganism and so on that have influenced Christianity as the practical Romans used this powerful and successful new system called Christianity to organise their world, their laws and culture in their new domains. And so began the Roman Catholic Church.
It can be experienced and it can be felt, through our sense of being, through our consciousness, through our own revelations as to our identities, purposes and philosophies as a group of inspired creatures on the Earth.
Understanding God and ourselves accurately presupposes our using our imaginations on an enormously diverse array of related and seemingly unrelated areas. Everything effects everything else. So to have a useful belief, we need to consider a considerable number of things interacting, in nonlinear ways sometimes, over a considerable period of time (which is linear the way we think about time).
Then there is a magical realisation of Now, what Now is, and how it and we came into being. This is a simpler but less rational approach.
God has appeared in our image, and we have made God into our image as well. But God is beyond both. If it is helpful to understand God as a singular being, with a name, a certain style or dress, a period in which he or she lived and did specific things as examples on how we should live, then that is useful.
I have had moments when I believed in the existence of God, and moments when I did not. I've had moments when life after death seemed certain, and moments when it seemed unnatural, and implausible. I see that energy is conserved, is not destroyed, but can alter its state. My own experience of my own energy suggests something intransigent, something eternal, about my inner reservoir of energy. This seems to aid in an explanation where my soul seems to be part of God, but also, to an extent, just a single cellular expression in the great organism that functions as a single sentient being. That wisdom and power flows through me, and my vitality, back into it. Sometimes the poisons and toxins and excrement flows into me, and I have to recycle these or redistribute them.
God is about balance, connection, consciousness and tremendous explosions of energy. Balance means that even what we consider negative, evil, sickly, bad, wrong, are part of God, and part of our existence. In the movie The Matrix, (the anomaly) Neo's power is directly proportional and in a way responsible for Agent Smith (his antithesis, a virus). In Star Wars, Darth Vader is both the unbalancer and the restorer of balance (through his son) of the universe, importantly, through a subscriptiuon to the same source of power, The Force.
I am somewhat sceptical of the usefulness of religion, as defined, specific arrangements of people with prescribed beliefs. Particularly where aspects can be powerfully brought to bear on populations to get them to engage in wars and genocide. I would like a more thorough study of statistics, but it seems that war often gains support from its religious base, even though the real reasons are the pursuit of scarcity by the elites and leaders who know how to manipulate their less conscious subscribers.
In some cases though personal relationships with God are powerful, and powerfully expressed and experienced. In these cases it appears that 'God as a person' works effectively. Whether this is true in a group scale is debatable, particularly where fundamentalism, and hubris have done much to prove otherwise.
For me, God's existence is predicated on the results of our combined actions, emotions and thoughts, though we experience the unfolding of these three states first in the reverse order (acting often mostly out of a subconscious state) and then when we interpret actions, especially our own, where we take responsibility, and become accountable for our connection to God and God's actions over the earth, then the flow moves inward at a higher state of consciuousness, and finally outward again in a much more enlightened state. Obviously these patterns occur in infinite patterns, and this is the simple and complex and beautiful reality we call Now.
While I subscribe to 99% of what Christians believe, and also basically classify myself as a Christian, I see a fundamental and exclusive view (the 1% I don't agree with) as representing the crucial area where we compete with other groups for the Highest Truth, and rationalise war and destruction for this Greater Good. In the case of Infinite War (as in the Middle East), where two groups insist unto death that their belief is right (instead of realising that not one is better, but both are from the same truth) it may be better to take a long term view, and dismantle the mythic personalities, or some of the coda at least, that define religions.
God is in my belief a God of this world. Heaven is on Earth, and so is hell. A good road to begin, if you feel your faith is unshakeable, and unteachable, is to pursue this simple step: imagine the reality of heaven. Where is it? If you go there immediately, how and where would you go, and what exactly would you find. Conscious reasoning shows that Heaven is a state, a condition, a perfect experiece. I'm sure this is what we experience here, and I believe we can encounter the same in a below physical state (which comprises most of the universe, which is also beyond the visual spectrum). It is a great tragedy to pursue a dream that begins after we are dead, because in this philosophy, we might do great harm to ourselves and others (as was done in the name of Communism), and may lead ourselves and our world to ruin.
And I don't pretend to understand the Mystery that is God. There are many dimensions, of space and time, and perhaps even reincarnations, where we return again and again until we have the consciousness to get to a higher level. The idea of a simultaneous multidimensional co-operative reality, based on a sort of Game Level premise, and a Matrix-like philosophy, is baffling but possible. Since each person manifests our own reality, this provides one explanation for our unique experience of God. But the great Mystery that is God seems to me to be revealed best in the way all things are connected. Science to Faith, Creation to Evolotion, Man to Women, Light to Darkness, Good to Evil, Goverments to Terrorism. It is useful to find those things that support, that are related to, that connect with the other thing that is different, than on focussing on the disparities.
It is easier to solve a Mystery by examining and if possible, synergising all the divergent data into a cohesive whole, something that is digestable and perhaps comprehensible. Currently, our either or appraoch, black or white, is entirely too exclusive and limiting, and leads us to duality. Duality is a reality, but a really troubling, and lonely one. There is a greater reality, one in which we can participate, as individuals, as individuals conscious of God, and as a collection of consciousness (individuals conscious of ourselves, each other and God in all), which is the highest consciousness, which is God (and ourselves) operating in Harmony.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)