I used to lead treks to the Everest Base Camp and working with a group of Sherpas founded the first hut system in Nepal in 1990. The fall of 1995 had the worst storm in memory. I was appalled at world press coverage of the foreigners who died with no mention of the Sherpas who also perished. I'm a reference librarian and researched the major data bases to discover that while many anthropologists had studied the tribe, no one had dramatized their lives in fiction to reveal their hearts and souls. Beyond the Summit does just that.

A reader posted this comment on Barnes & Noble.

John, a college professor, July 17, 2006,
Best book on Nepal ever
This is the book to read before you embark on your pilgrimage to Nepal. The author knows and loves the people and the country, and makes you feel the cold thin air, the hard rocks of the mountains, the tough life of the Sherpa guides, and you learn to love them too. This is a highly literate, but also very readable book. Highly recommended.

Because the book is so unusual, it immediately generated a great deal of interest. A week after it came out, a Denver affiliate of NBC invited for a live TV appearance and I was interviewed on Colorado Public Radio. Last week while in northern CA, I was interviewed for a one-hour program, A Novel Idea, on KRCB in Rohnert Park, CA; the Pat Thurston Show on KSRO in Santa Rosa; CA and the Morning show on KSVY in Sonoma, CA.

The Boulder Daily Camera published a review on the front cover of the book section Sunday, September 17. The Rocky Mountain News is going to publish a review this Friday. All customer comments on Barnes and Noble and amazon.com have been 5 star. Readers constantly applaud how much they learned about the Sherpas.

Please visit my web site to read the Camera review and others, listen to the Colorado Public Radio interview, and see sample slides. I offer a slide show about the Sherpas and Everest region followed by an author signing.

As a result, many good people have lost their lives along the way. Stubborn fools who should have known better miscalculated and the consequences have been dire. I fail to see the point of such an adventure.

Um... to kill off stubborn fools so we don't have to deal with them?

I climbed mountains in Alaska. At my age now just to clime a ladder is a feat. Dam do I hate cold, ice and that crap white shit they call snow.

Linda, thanks for the valuable info. As for JR and SR, funny.

JR. What an honor and privilege to be in the funny pool with you. sr

Come on Alessandro. People are entitled to take risks, if that's their bent.

I love surfing big waves. Every time I go in the water, there's a risk. A healthy dose of fear and accumulated knowledge about wind, swell and currents helps, but ultimately, in the water, its about committing yourself to the act.

Once you are out there, surrounded by big, moving walls of water and listening to the thunderous noise and the thump of your own heartbeat, and have made the decision to go, you are on your own. Much like mountain climbing, I assume.

If people want to climb mountains for fun, hey, why not. We all get our kicks in different ways. Just crossing the road these days is a risk, even at a walk sign.

I can tell you the risk factor and the accompanying adrenaline rush DO make you feel alive.

"The world is filled with egomaniacs."

Like bloggers who think their view of the world matters more than anyone else's.

Should we do away with all activities you deem only "satisfy a personal, selfish craving?" Provide "no benefit to mankind?" and doesn't "solve our problems or find a cure for a disease?"

Practice what you preach.

STM, it's a fair debate you bring up. I do consider surfing a little different. I tried surfing. As you may have guessed, I wasn't to hot at it. I can't even stand on a skateboard. Col. Mustard blah, blah, blah. It's just an opinion. One where you completely missed the point.

I dont have a clue Col Mustard. Maybe with a knife in the parlor. Your turn. Roll the dice Sir and I'll pop the corn with the butler and make the maid.

By the way, I do hope to hear from thoughtful people who can offer a different insight. Maybe there is some value to risking a life up there. This piece is not meant to question the abled minds and bodies who fully grasp the nature of Everest but rather those who attack it with little understanding of it. People like Linda do just that and I deeply appreciate it.

Mate, if you think surfing is different to mountain climbing, well it obviously is in terms of the medium but the risk factors are the same.

So surfing small waves is probably a bit like climbing the climbing wall at the athletics centre down the road. If you slip, not much happens.

Surfing big waves IS like climbing mountains. One false move, and you've got tons of water on your head.

It's not just a question of falling into nice, soft water if you make a mistake. Big waves behave differently to small waves and in some places, if you fall, you die - or you're seriously injured.

I have a self-imposed limit on the size I will surf for that reason, but even so I have been hurt and almost drowned on one occasion after being held under for a long time.

All these risky sports are the same deal - even skiing, which is the equivalent of surfing in your country.

Why do people do it? It's all about the risk.

As in most adventurous activities, it's about testing yourself against something.

In the case of Everest, it's the mountain and the challenge it presents.

Fighters find it in the ring, testing themselves against their opponent.

The waves for surfers, the deep for divers, the Antarctic for exploration, even still being able to step where no man has been before.

Some folks have the drive to test themselves in extreme ways..selfish, yep.

But I do think we evolved into who we are as humans, exactly because some silly hominids wanted to try something different, or be the first to pull that saber tooth's tail.

Dear STM and D'Oh (Homer), all valid points I actually agree with and that I am aware of. I do in fact ski (and hockey too. There is risk in such sports) but it's pure enjoyment. I doubt you get the same sort of gut wrenching tragedies and sad stories on the same scale you hear about Everest. It's all about managing and assessing risk. STM, you know your limits and your risks. However, it simply isn't the case with people who don't take proper care and perhaps I should have made this clearer in the piece. I challenge less the experts and more the wanton desire to seek risk for its own sake. The experts can at least give us some idea of how far the human spirit can go. Just like a person who had to go through torture etc. There's a flip side too and this is just from reading stunning stories like 'Into Thin Air.' For example, is it right for a person with a family to go on a trek to Everest and then stubbornly ignore the advice of guides? That's what I'm trying to get to here. That and the fact that there should be more of a mankind benefit angle to it. But that's me.

Ah, you mean stupidity.

Different animal completely.

I think it's about the fine balance between biology and psychology. Certain drives to explore and test oneself are built into us as part of our biology's influence. Yet some have a strong drive, but not the competence. Others have all the physical and mental tools, but not the strong drive. Endless variations in between,and those are the crucial ones.

D'oh - Well put. I thought hard before posting this piece. It's not really my character to question or judge others. I tend to be a libertarian myself but I figured sometimes it's ok to thought provoke. I also knew it could be one of those pieces that could upset some. I felt it had merit nonetheless. Judging from the comments (save one) I'm satisfied I decided to do so as I have learnt from the them.

Is there any benefit to mankind? Is there something up there that can solve our problems or find a cure for a disease?

Why do you believe everybody has to contribute something to mankind or solve a problem? Is this your own objective? Do you believe people are selfish if they do what they enjoy?

I don't mean someone with a family as that would have to be discussed in a different way. But why shouldn't independent people do what they are excited about if it doesn't harm others?

Hi Ken, guess that's the crux of the piece. It's kind of hard to see where I'm coming from if you haven't read 'Into thin air' The author did such a good job of describing the characters and utterly tragic events that I questioned some peoples motives. I don't think some people think things through enough when it comes to serious endeavours. Yes, in terms of risking life versus valuable reward I would submit that getting a personal rush may not be enough. But I would never stop it. People are free to do what they want.

This is a great topic for discussion and, as an Everest climber and professional guide, I have a few thoughts to offer.

Climbing, like many sports and activities, has some inherent risk. So does driving on the interstate...which sometimes has more risk than Everest! Anyway, to me the true nature of climbing, and the acceptance of the inherent risks, is NOT (contrary to popular opinion) about toeing the line of death and then jumping back at the last minute squealing "Ha! Ya missed me!" Rather, climbing (or surfing big waves and other such pursuits) is about pushing yourself and overcoming physical and mental obstacles standing in your way.

When I go out to climb a mountain, be it a small one in my backyard or a major Himalayan peak, I can always find a challenge for myself. Perhaps it is pushing myself physically, continuing to go hard even when my body says it is time to stop and throttle back. On more technical ascents, it is a combination of pushing both physically and mentally...The most enthralling thing I have found on big peaks is the unique combination of the physical and cerebral challenges they represent. In 1999, on my first Everest expedition, I turned around less than 800 feet from the top. I had pushed myself physically and overcome barriers, tackled mental setbacks and obstacles, but still had to analyze the situation in a rational way. My decision was based on many elements, cerebral and physical, which all forced me to decide to leave the top for another day.

So, to come back around, I think climbing mountains - Hood, Manadnock, or Everest - should be about striving to see what we can accomplish in our lives. It is, really, a metaphor for life itself. Climbing (and similar sports) teach us that many things which seem impossible are actually possible given the right combination of skill, insight, tenacity, & instinct. As James Ramsey Ullman so eloquently put it: "In its truest and most profound sense, the mountain life is an escape not from, but to, reality."

That said, I completely agree that there are many sad aspects of climbing these days, and many people are not out there in the hills trying to overcome obstacles and push themselves, but rather for the glory of saying "I climbed such-and-such." And, sadly, this attitude often leads to tragedy, for someone whose climbing drive is fueled by ego rather than a desire to see what they can personally accomplish is more apt to make poor decisions and continue onwards at all costs. We see that, sadly, on Everest each and every year.

But, we cannot lump all climbing and climber together any more than we can lump all business together because of the actions and attitudes of the Enrons and Tycos.

To return longwindedly to my point, climbing is about pushing yourself and overcoming obstacles. It is not for everyone, but it is perfect for some, and is a grounding, self-realizing experience. To add another quote to the mix, one which I use to close my keynote presentations, by Everest pioneer George Leigh Mallory:

"The first question which you will ask and which I must try to answer is this, "What is the use of climbing Mount Everest?" and my answer must at once be, "It is no use." There is not the slightest prospect of any gain whatsoever. Oh, we may learn a little about the behavior of the human body at high altitudes, and possibly medical men may turn our observation to some account for the purposes of aviation. But otherwise nothing will come of it. We shall not bring back a single bit of gold or silver, not a gem, nor any coal or iron. We shall not find a single foot of earth that can be planted with crops to raise food. It's no use. So, if you cannot understand that there is something in man which responds to the challenge of this mountain and goes out to meet it, that the struggle is the struggle of life itself upward and forever upward, then you won't see why we go. What we get from this adventure is just sheer joy. And joy is, after all, the end of life. We do not live to eat and make money. We eat and make money to be able to enjoy life. That is what life means and what life is for."

Jake Norton
MountainWorld Productions
www.mountainworldproductions.com

Alessandro,

First, I am glad to see that this site does not permit personal attacks. However, I am not so glad to see that the guardians of decency seemed to have fallen asleep at the gates. At least one comment here, or so I think, is indeed quite personal, and is not at all complimentary.

Second, I like your essay.

You know, if I could, I'd climb Everest tomorrow. It has always been a dream of mine. I used to read books about it as a little boy; I simply wanted to be a mountaineer.

But now all I climb, pretty much, is Mount Monadnock (mispelled by Mr. Norton, I believe, unless there IS a Manadnock somewhere) and its foothills. And Mr. Norton is right -- there are risks in the simplest climbs. I am, mostly, a bushwhacker: I don't like trails. And I hike alone. But what is an adventure to me is mere commonplace to someone else.

Why climb Everest? Curiosity? Perhaps. Mere thrill? Maybe. Bragging rights? Sure.

I wonder if much of it all has to do with a sense of claustrophobia, of looking for some sort of open air: air for the lungs, yes, but also for the soul. Tonight, while at the gym, a fellow told me about his co-worker, a fellow city-firefighter, who had recently returned from summitting Everest. The cost? A mere $110,000. Most of the funds were raised various ways; apparently the climb was with a Nova team. But the fact is that Everest is, by and large, a rich man's sport: it is -- in many ways -- a very expensive decal to stick on the back of one's RV. Yes, there are those who need adventure: but this is usually the case for those who have none in their personal lives, either physically or spiritually. I am not saying this is the case for everyone; but it surely is the case for many.

I have an old schoolmate who climbed Mount Monadnock every day for several years (Larry Davis is his name). Rain, wind, ice, snow, Davis climbed. But once, during a time when he had some sort of injury, a friend of his carried him on his back to the summit. I photographed this curiosity for the local papers; Davis later told me that he had contacted the Guinness Book of World Records about the feat, and they, of course, snubbed him.

I share this because the climb up Mount Monadnock from the trailhead used in that climb is perhaps 1,800 vertical feet. That Mr. Davis, and even the NATIONAL press, should lose perspective on such a feat is largely due to the absolute dearth of adventure in much of western life. I once met a woman, a Dr. Helen Huston (she is the sister of a friend), who worked as a medical doctor in the Himalayas. She told me about indigenous Nepalese, mostly Sherpas, carrying their sick on their backs fifty or more miles in search of medical help; these men and women would cover 10's of thousands of vertical feet during these treks, some doing so barefoot (and without rest). In other words, some people's lives are intrinsically adventurous: and the rich, whose lives are hardly edgy, are able to manufacture and purchase adventures in order to compensate for what they believe they lack.

I admit that this is all more psychological than you wanted to get. But the poor don't take leisurely, or even arduous, walks into thin air for the sake of identity, or meaning, or expanding their personal frontiers. They are too busy surviving to throw themselves into a survivalists' holiday. There is, as you know, the Patagonia crowd, and then there is the Patagucci crowd. There are the men who fish for a living - every day - and then there are the Orvis fly-fisherman jet-setting to exotic streams. There are those who know how to lead-climb, and there are those who have a rack of hardware hanging in their closets. I ski all the time with people who buy racing skis from the local Atomic rep, or the Volkl rep, and yet they have not the skills to actually use the skis properly. Are these people pushing themselves beyond certain fears, or certain boundaries? Are they opening up new frontiers?

Sadly, Everest has become a vertical tropical beach: it's become a resort complete with service staff. Yes, it is a dangerous resort, but the danger does not make it any less a resort than a Club Med.

And just one look at the amount of trash -- lost gear, abandoned bivvys, forsaken O2 tanks -- that is left on the sides of that great peak, and one gets a clear sense that this is not about respecting nature or appreciating beauty.

Lastly, for a really good look at the mind I believe you are aiming to understand, read Aron Ralston's "Between A Rock And A Hard Place." He's the guy whose arm was pinned by a boulder as he trekked -- alone -- through a slot canyon in Utah. To me, Ralston epitomizes the vanity-adventurer in search of designer-thrills (sorry, Mr. Ralston). (The book is quite good, by the way.)

Anyhow, too many words. Forgive me.

Thanks, and peace.

BG

BG,

Great reply, and my apologies for misspelling Monadnock - thanks for the correction! (I gre up in MA and cut my teeth climbing in the White Mountains - people always think they must be easy because they are "small" - quite a surprise when they actually get there!)

I agree with you wholeheartedly - the climbing realm had become a different beast, especially on Everest, in recent years. The huge amounts of money, irresponsible climbers and outfitters, and a hesitation to restrict activities on the mountain by both the Nepali and Chinese governments is acusing major problems. And, as you note, the desire to climb Everest simply for the RV decal (hehehe) or to talk about it on the golf course leads to innumerable problems and issues.

But, fortunately, that is not the case for all expeditions, all climbers. There are a great many Everest climbers on the mountain each year who are there for the right reasons and thus make good decisions and climb well, earning whatever high point they reach. And, while it is more often than not a rich man's sport, there are many expedition member who are far from wealthy - I am one of them. I earned my position on my various expeditions, serving as either a researcher/climber (in the case of the 1999, 2001, and 2004 Mallory & Irvine Research Expeditions) or working as a paid photographer (in 2002 & 2003).

I guess, in the end, we all need to accept that Everest, simply by virtue of being the highest peak, is always going to be a siren song for people with both good intentions and bad ones. But, so far as I am concerned, it is on the shoulders of climbers as a group and Everest expedition leaders, etc., specifically to change the status quo on the mountain these days. This can come from pressuring the local governments to enact stricter guidelines for expeditions - guided and non - as well as expedition organizers policing themselves to ensure that correct decisions are made high on the mountain...decisions which may not please a high paying client when he/she is sent down from, say, Camp VI, but decisions which will be right, good, just, smart, and are certain to please the friends and family waiting for a safe return.

Thanks again for your good thoughts on the subject, and hope to see you on Monadnock someday!

Best,

Jake Norton
MountainWorld Productions

Thanks so much Jake and Bill. This is what I was hoping to find. I did focus more on the 'vaniy' side of things. The lumping of sorts Jake alludes to. I suppose somewhere I was somewhat vindicated by Mallory when he said there isn't much to learn up there except joy - though I wonder what Aquinas would have thought about this. He felt life without joy is not a life. I'm not without some experience in nature. I do cross country ski and have gone through some mentally exhausting marathons. I have hiked in Vermont, B.C. and Nova Scotia. I have had to recover from traumatic knee surgeries which psychologically affected my ability to play sports. Of course, this pales to Everest but everything is relevant. Part of me does feel enticed to try it (I am in fantastic shape). But I would never do it for the wrong reasons. Ever. And if I did, I would follow instructions to the letter. I do wholeheartedly understand (and admire) why people of good intentions want to climb Everest. They were never the true subject of the piece. As the both of you eloquently put it, it was more the people who want to say they've climbed Everest to show their friends. Once again, great stuff.

I meant to say 'relative.' Oi.

Dear Mr. Norton and Alessandro,

It is nice to be in agreement here (or so I hope). I do not mean to sound overly judgmental or sweepingly broad in my indictment of climbing. As I said, I'd be a mountaineer in a heartbeat.

I am sure Mr. Norton can speak to this better than I, but the fact that Everest is the tallest peak in the world does not make it the most difficult peak in the world to climb. I have heard that Everest's glaciers are thoroughly formidable; but the actual peak itself is not necessarily that challenging. Am I wrong about this? I have been led to believe that there are far more challenging hills in the Himalayas, the Andes and in Patagonia. I've also heard that McKinley/Denali is a particularly wicked climb: wicked vertical and wicked latitude. Talk about thin air.

Yes, Mr. Norton is right: New Hampshire's White Mountains are a decent challenge.

It seems, Alessandro, that our climbing experience is somewhat similar. I've climbed in New England and BC/Alberta. That's it. But I love it whereever I go (I once enjoyed a nice evening climb up a 250' manmade ski hill in Michigan).

Anyhow, peace to you both. Monadnock for certain!

BG

Bill,

Seems like we're all in agreement! Always nice to have happen!

As for your question/comment regarding Everest and difficulty...yes and no. By the standard/easiest route, Everest is certainly not the most difficult in the world. Far from it. K2 (#2) is far more difficult by the standard route, as is Kangchenjunga (#3) and many of the other 8000m peaks. Ditto for countless other peaks around the world.

That said, however, there are certainly routes on Everest which provide challenge beyond comprehension. The SE Ridge is the easiest, then the NE Ridge, which has considerably more subjective hazard/techincal difficulty. The W Ridge, first climbed by Unsoeld, Hornbein, and Bishop in 1963 (their route has yet to be repeated) is quite a challenge; someone did the direct W Ridge in the '80's I believe with up to 5.9 rock high on the mountain...Whew! The SW Face, climbed by Bonnington, Scott, and crew in 1985 is a doozy to say the least. And, then, there is the mighty Kangshung Face, only climbed a handful of times - 10,000' of vertical to overhanging ice and rock. So, Everest certainly has its challenges, but the vast majority of climbers (myself included) go to the "easy" routes.

As for Denali...there are few peaks as underrated in terms of difficulty as that one. Cold as hell, stormy, grueling, and, given it's latitude, akin to a 22,000 foot peak in the southerly Himalaya. The standard route is a walk up, but the environmental challenges are huge...and there are no Sherpa to help you along!

Anyway, I'm babbling...it's late.

Happy Holidays, all! And, thanks Alessandro for a great, mind churning and thought provoking post!

-Jake

"It's just an opinion. One where you completely missed the point."

How did I miss the point? To you, climbing Everest is pointless. But to others, blogging on the Internet is pointless. Judge not, least ye be judged.

get over yourself, BG. My comment was not personal. If you are that sensitive, I would suggest staying off the Internet.

It's ego that is truly man's mental Achilles' Heel.

Col. Mustard. You're back! It's hard to not take your comments personal. Actually, rereading it reveals its harshness. But hey, as you said, it's the Internet. Get used to it. I have been many things in my life and egotistical is not one of them. This aspect of the threads seems rather trivial to me. It takes away from the overall discussion. I still don' t think you're getting the depper crux of the piece. Blogging on the Internet is not climbing Everest. I have yet to hear of people dying in the Internet while blogging. Plus, if you use blogger, it's free. The arguement you make is not applicable in my opinion. While it is true ego can be man's AH many other things are too. I chose this because it was interesting to read about all these people who were ill-prepared to take on the mountain - out of, well, ego. So I guess our debate comes full circle here. I would invite you to read the threads carefully. Then you'll see more about the piece. It's pointless (and Jake posted a quote from Mallory agreeing in part that it is indeed not useful except for certain things) for some in the sense that they take on a big gig without fully knowing what they are getting into. People like Jake can attest to this I am sure. Again, read the posts. They are filled with superb insights.

Well Alessandro, that you feel that climbing is pointless misses the actual point. I guess you could list a number of things people could do instead of climbing that would make you feel comfortable. In fact, its non of your business.

I prefer distance hiking on the Pacific Crest Trial. Its kind of dangerous, but has its own rewards. I'm sure you could evaluate my psychological shortcoming based on my need to wonder without purpose with a backpack through the high mountain peaks for months at a time, but so what. You gain nothing by trying to put climbers on a couch and evaluate their impact on the mental health of society.

Thanks Mohjho. Well said. The only thing I would add is that in a wider deeper social meaning it is my business and have the right to express it. Again, as I have pointed out in the thread, I should have perhaps made it a clearer point that I question less the capable people such as yourself and more the ones who do it for the wrong reasons.