David Sharp

Author’s Goal: Jon Krakauer’s goal is to provide an accurate account of the Mt. Everest disaster, and describe the other events and effects the climb had leading up to it. I think he reached his goal because he was able to connect with the reader in many different ways, and he got his message across well. He provides vivid descriptions, details, and facts, all while establishing that he is credible. The author did convince me of his point of view. Now, I understand that climbing Everest is very difficult, and there are numerous challenges people must face and overcome during an expedition.

In all three article, “Helicopter Rescues Increasing on Everest”, “Why Everest?”, and “Ranger Killed During Rescue of Climbers on Mount Rainier” all have different points of view regarding the issue of emergency rescues of mountain climbers.

On May 10, 1996, nine people perished on Mt. Everest. Jon Krakauer, a writer from Outside magazine, was there to witness the events and soon after write the book, Into Thin Air, chronicling the disaster. Jon Krakauer is not only the writer and narrator of Into Thin Air but is also one of the main characters. Originally Outside Magazine planned to send Krakauer to Everest in order for him to write a story for the magazine. The climb was completely financed by the magazine with one of the leading Everest guide groups led by Rob Hall, an elite climber. Krakauer divides the people on the mountain into two main categories, tourist and elite. The elite being guides and Sherpas like Hall, Harris and Ang Dorje,

“In climbing, having confidence in your partners is no small concern. One climber’s actions can affect the welfare of the entire team”(37)

Mount Everest is 29,092 feet tall. Imagine climbing this mountain with little to no experience. Would you survive? In the nonfiction novel Into Thin Air by Jon Krakauer, Krakauer and his recruited crews try climbing this mountain. With many deaths along the way to the top, readers are quick to blame characters in the book. However, character stands out from the rest: Krakauer. In the book Into Thin Air by Jon Krakauer, Krakauer is the most responsible for the other character’s deaths because he recruited and dragged along inexperienced mountain climbers, pushed them harder than they should’ve been pushed, and watched them suffer.

Have you ever wanted to prove to everyone that you are a hard worker that is willing to give up everything to go on an adventure? If this is you than Everest is the perfect place for you. In the story, “ Into Thin Air,” by Jon Krakauer a true story is told of a dangerous voyage up and down Everest. The climb up was arduous and long according to Jon, but the climbers sacrificed everything to get to the top, which most of the climbers achieved. However, emotions shifted when a storm swooped in and killed many of the climbers that were stuck on the summit, around 12-19 in total.

Before reading this book, I had already been aware of the countless dangers of Mt. Everest. Last summer I read a book about Mt. Everest much like this one in the state that both were spoken through personal accounts, and both used constant detail to express the horrible and painful experiences that both authors had to go through. This prior knowledge helped better my understanding of this book because I was aware of the common occurrences that can take place while climbing Mt. Everest, and the gruesome circumstances that go with it. During the eighth chapter, readers become aware of a horrible condition that a character is dealing with. “By the time he arrived at the tents late that afternoon Ngawang was delirious, stumbling like a drunk, and coughing up pink, blood-laced froth” (Krakauer 113).

In order to continue climbing Everest, many aspects of climbing need to be improved before more people endanger their lives to try and reach the roof of the world. The guides have some areas that need the most reform. During the ascension of Everest the guides made a plethora mistakes that seemed insignificant but only aided in disaster. The guides first mistake is allowing “any bloody idiot [with enough determination] up” Everest (Krakauer 153). By allowing “any bloody idiot” with no climbing experience to try and climb the most challenging mountain in the world, the guides are almost inviting trouble. Having inexperienced climbers decreases the trust a climbing team has in one another, causing an individual approach to climbing the mountain and more reliance on the guides. While this approach appears fine, this fault is seen in addition to another in Scott Fischer’s expedition Mountain Madness. Due to the carefree manner in which the expedition was run, “clients [moved] up and down the mountain independently during the acclimation period, [Fischer] had to make a number of hurried, unplanned excursions between Base Camp and the upper camps when several clients experienced problems and needed to be escorted down,” (154). Two problems present in the Mountain Madness expedition were seen before the summit push: the allowance of inexperienced climbers and an unplanned climbing regime. A third problem that aided disaster was the difference in opinion in regards to the responsibilities of a guide on Everest. One guide “went down alone many hours ahead of the clients” and went “without supplemental oxygen” (318). These three major issues: allowing anyone up the mountain, not having a plan to climb Everest and differences in opinion. All contributed to the disaster on Everest in

In the book “Into thin air” by Jon Krakauer, Krakauer sought to report and write about his climb up mount everest. He knew it wouldn't be easy, but he did not and could not have predicted the barriers and conflicts that were inflicted upon him, by the mountain and it’s atmosphere. Due to these barriers and conflicts, it would be naive to say that the main conflict wasn’t man vs nature. Nevertheless, Krakauer had the worst experience of his life, climbing and fighting against the physical and mental effects of Mount Everest.

Imagine you are one of the highest mountains in the world. You don’t care about the risks because there are rescue services to help you. But what if one day they all decide to quit or they don’t come to you in time? There are amazing climbers who are still willing to make the climb but when they make a mistake there won’t be someone behind you to bring you back up when you fall.There are people in this world who are willing to take risks and reach their own Mount Everest but sometimes the price can be too high to bear. For example, having the person who rescued you died trying. That person is part of the rescue services. When climbers are putting their own life on the line, they shouldn’t be demanding the rescue services to save them when they are putting themselves at risk.

The Harvard Business School case Mount Everest – 1996 narrates the events of May 11, 1996, when 8 people-including the two expedition leaders— died during a climb to the tallest mountain in the world (five deaths are described in the case, three border police form India also died that day). This was dubbed the “deadliest day in the mountain’s history” (at least until April 18, 2014). The survivors and many analysts have tried to decipher what went wrong that day, find an underlying cause, and learn from the event.

On May 10, 1996 six people died trying to reach the summit of Mt. Everest. These people were parts of two expeditions that were in the Himalayas, preparing to ascend the summit for six weeks. The first group was under the direction of Rob Hall, who had put 39 paying clients on the summit in five years. Hall was considered the leader of the mountain and the man to see no matter what the discrepancy. Group two, headed by Fisher, who like Hall, was trying to start a profitable business in providing the experience of climbing Mt. Everest to all for the price of 60 to 70 thousand dollars. Unfortunatly, neither man would live to tell the tale of this expedition.

Can you save other people’s lives when you are in danger or close to death? I would say “No” most of the time because my life is the most important thing in the universe at least for me. This is a quite difficult and controversial question, but I assume that the majority of people would say no as well. I don’t understand why the climbers take risks that they can die.

Lack of psychological safety within the team members failed to fix cognitive bias of irrationality. If members developed trust within the team, cognitive bias could have been prevented or at least minimized. The truth that climbers might make irrational decisions and find it hard to turn back when they are so closed to the summit was obvious, but teammates seeing this problem did not speak up since they did not feel that their thoughts were welcome and felt uneasy. More cognitive biases could also been prevented to lessen the complex system of the expedition. Since climbing Mt. Everest is already a high risk venture, any additional problems such as irrational decisions can cause a crisis. Using the early sign of issues with Hall’s team’s progress, it was obvious that the probability of failing the expedition was high before the team even started. Hall could have used the issues as a sign of the complex systems that exist, and could have used this knowledge to prevent any irrational decisions. The complex systems and the lack of psychological safety also contributed to the tragedy. The team members failed to communicate and trust each other, which then added more problems to the complex systems. For instance, Boukreev’s could have spoken up to his team leader, Fischer, about his concerns regarding his team members lacking experience to begin with. By speaking up, he could have prevented more chain reaction due to lack of communications and feedback within the

In 1996, climbers on Mount Everest suffered through the worst disaster to date on the mountain. A huge storm hit as they were climbing towards the summit. Eight of the climbers ended up dead. Jon Krakauer, one of the few survivors, told the tale of all the survivors in his book Into Thin Air. After surviving, he questions multiple things about the world, such as the concept of mortality. He questions who is responsible for the deaths of the others in this book, or if self-preservation is the bottom line. I believe that Jon Krakauer is most responsible for everyone who died to an extent. However I also believe he cannot be fully blamed and self reliance is needed. Jon Krakauer is responsible because he took inexperienced people who weren’t well