I've been on a nonfiction kick for a while now, and I've always had a bit of a morbid fascination with stories like this, so Into Thin Air has been on my radar for a while. Going into this book, I was aware that I had seen a movie that was based on it without realizing (Everest, 2015) so on top of it being a true story I already knew a good chunk of details (depending on how accurate the movie was, of course.) I also knew there was controversy around this book and with Krakauer's versions of what happened - enough so that Antoni Boukreev wrote a book of his own (The Climb) to tell his story that I intend to read as well. I also knew Beck Weathers wrote a book (Left for Dead: My Journey Home from Everest), and researching more now, I found that there are books written by Lene Gammelgaard (Climbing High: A Woman's Account of Surviving the Everest Tragedy) and Lou Kasischke (After the Wind: 1996 Everest Tragedy, One Survivor's Story), so I could easily go down a rabbithole on this event and I probably would enjoy it.

All of that is to say: I went in with an open mind on Krakauer's telling. In his defense, he does make it clear that by the literal nature of the location, the logical skills of everyone involved are extremely inhibited by the altitude on the mountain. He states this multiple times, and mentions many small and larger instances where peoples' mental capacity weren't at 100 percent, but that was something that could only be seen in hindsight. The biggest example being his interaction he initially thought was with Andy Harris but turned out to be with Martin Adams - causing him to report Harris at a location that he never actually was - a fact which was not realized until months later when the two men compared their stories.

I very much agree with the criticisms of this telling. Krakauer does not necessarily hide his opinions of certain people, and with all the discussion of altered logic, it doesn't seem to be a defense that gets applied to everyone equally. There are moments that feel a bit too hypocritical - the author highlighting that Boukreev descended ahead of the group and framing it as a selfish decision, despite Krakuaer himself itching to jump ahead of his team and descend earlier (which saved his own life.) It is also made clear that on the mountain it is important to take care of yourself or you are useless to those around you, and people have to make decisions on whether they are strong enough to help others without hurting themselves; again, a defense that doesn't seem to get applied to everyone equally. It feels like he tossed in that Boukreev went ahead to try and get things ready for the team as a slight nod at trying not to look too negatively at him. Throughout the book it is mentioned as well when guides have climbed the mountain with or without oxygen, and that when the guides climb with it they are "doing so for the good of the team," implying that not using the supplemental oxygen is irresponsible. Then in the closing of the book, critiques the use of oxygen as one of the reasons climbers who aren't truly experienced enough to climb the mountain are one of the problems (Krakuaer by earlier admission, being one of these climbers.) Yes, hindsight was much clearer off the mountain, but there are problems in this telling that the author already had hindsight on before he wrote them.
 
In the end, this is a story of hubris, human error, and the temptations that come with capitalization. There is no one person to blame for this event, though no one can take no blame at all. I think the most adept viewpoints come from two of points of view in the epilogue. One, an online post shared from a Sherpa orphan, highlighting that Sagarmāthā is being polluted by the outsiders, but that the Sherpa people are at fault as well for enabling these outsiders to try and conquer the mountain. That they are doomed now in the shadow of Sagarmāthā rather than saved, pulled in the wrong direction by the money from the would-be conquerors of Everest when living in an area that is poor and struggling. The orphan’s only solution has come as leaving their homeland and not returning. The issue is so complicated that is the only answer they could find for themselves. 

The other viewpoint in the epilogue comes in a letter to Krakuaer from Scott Fischer’s sister, and I think is an apt conclusion for any kind of memoir written about events like this and the responsibility of writing them as well as reading them: 

Krakuaer introduces this letter as one that was hard to read, and makes basically no rebuttal, but it does make a certain commentary just that he includes these statements at the conclusion.
 

But mostly what I take from reading this book is, you’d have to be crazy to want to try and climb this mountain.