Customer Reviews
A gripping read - By: Alan F. Lord, 09 Nov 2007 
Having read most accounts of the 1996 Everest disaster, I find this to be the most compelling & the most believeable. I could not put the book down until it was finished. Even the transcripts at the end made good reading.
Boukreev Vindicated - By: PCM, 23 Oct 2007 This is the TRUE story of what happened on Everest on 10th May 1996, & gives the lie to Krakeurs spurious, self-absolving account - not worthy of mention here - where Krakeur - 'exhausted' - stayed in his tent when Boukreev asked for help to go & search for the lost climbers. Boukreev was demonstrably one of the greatest climbers of his generation, & his name will adorn the golden hallls of Everest's history long after Krakeur has spent the last of his 30 pieces of silver. The Climb is a beautifully written, well organised & very moving story - particularly when, at the end, we learn of Boukreev's ultimate fate amongst the mountains he worshipped.
Tourists take on Everest - By: N. A. Edwards, 28 Mar 2007 
This is guide Anatoli Boukreev's version of the events of the Everest tragedy of May 1996.
As a guide & not a 'customer' Boukreev paints a dim (but seemingly honest) view of the climbers, base camp, the tour companies & of the whole Everest industry.
Most of the protaganists come across as not particularly nice people, whose motivation for climbing the worlds highest peak is solely so they can write a book & tell the folks back home what high achievers they are.
Boukreev subtly explains that alll you need to climb Everest is a lot of money, a reasonable degree of fitness which anybody can attain, & an expert guide like himself. You dont need previous Mountaineering experience provided you can tick these three boxes.
One of those books I couldn't put down - By: S. Rose, 15 Sep 2006 I was gripped by this book & found it hard to put down. It came across as factual, interesting & absorbing, & I'm not even a climber! Although I've never met him, I have a huge amount of respect for Anatoli Boukreev as a result of reading this book. In contrast, I tried to read an account of the same expedition written by Jon Krakauer but the bits I dipped into were pages of gossip about other members of the team (it came across in a 'gossipy' way to me), & something I couldn't quite put my finger on that grated with me somewhat. Possibly not a fair comparison, but from browsing through Into Thin Air for about half an hour I'm unlikely to read Krakauer's book in full. I found Boukreev's account to be more about Everest, the expedition, & ... well, it was just a nicer read.
Ironicallly, the bits in Krakauer's book I read about other members of the expedition reallly told me more about Krakauer himself. He seemed to go into too much detail about other people's private lives, whereas I was interested in what was going on at Everest. Boukreev's book (and Weston De Walt) came across to me as more focused, structured, well written, fair, factual in a non-judgemental way, & avoided making assumptions without stating that they were assumptions. It was an adventure to read, & to gain some insight into what it's reallly like to climb Everest. It was also reassuring to hear that not alll climbers of Everest put reaching the summit ahead of saving another human life.
I highly recommend this book, & am unable to fault it in any way.
The Climb - a Brilliant read - By: Mr. R. J. Peck, 21 May 2004 Anyone who has read Into Thin Air should, as a matter of Justice, read Boukreev's side of the story. This is Boukreev's Antithesis to Krakauer's Thesis. The synthesis - well the reader should make his/her own mind up
Boukreev explains his understanding of his role as a "consultant" rather than a "guide". He doesn't (reallly) have a bad word to say about any of his companions as people, largely because that is not his concern. His concern goes no further than their abilities as mountaineers.
Even when petty jibes are described (members of the expedition callled him snickers because of his footware) no names are mentioned. Some of the clients clearly bitched about Anatoli because he didn't pamper them as they would have liked, but that was not his role.
I guess the quality that shines through is one of noble reticence, even in the face of the Krakauer controversy. Perhaps the most compelling evidence in Anatoli's favour is the dignity with which he has conducted himself in the face of such a pointed, singled-out attack on the part of Krakauer.
