Maurice Herzog’s Annapurna would have fit well under last week’s discussion theme of “The Drama of Mountaineering” with his highly detailed account of expedition that he led into the Himalayas. His search for Annapurna took the entire first half of the book before even locating the peak. Once his expedition team located Annapurna they struggled with summiting the peak  only leading to a traumatic descent. This storyline does not stray from the general plot line of many mountaineering accounts. However what stood out as being strikingly different from other books, specifically last week’s books was the way the author portrayed his journey as militaristic. From the beginning of the book, starting at the title, “Annapurna: The First Conquest of an 8,000 Meter Peak” to the very end when Hertzog meditates on his adventures, the story is described in a “war like” manner.

 

The preparations made for the expedition to the Himalayas in search of Annapurna were very carefully planned. Hertzog describes his team as “assault teams” and that “no better men could be found in France” (Herzog, p. 2). Not only did Hertzog make sure his team was full of experienced mountaineers but he was sure to have a doctor on staff to make sure he and his men could be physically cared for while searching for this mysterious peak. The mountaineers, or assault team even took an oath together, swearing that they would obey their leader during the expedition under any circumstances (Hertzog, p. 5). These highly regimented procedures seem similar to how one would address a platoon and that the leader would be an officer.

 

Once reaching the Himalayas and setting up camp, the way they interacted with one another as well as the way they addressed their mission was similar to historical war narratives. The banter is presented much like the conversations between soldiers that exist in war narrative accounts. Even the content of the conversations are comparable, such discussion of food, supplies, and  of navigable routes to their desirable location (Hertzog, p. 35). In the case of Annapurna, it was obvious that the site they were trying to “conquer” was not an enemy army or territory rather it was a geological location, the peak of Annapurna.

 

Once the mystery peak of Annapurna had been located, the letters that were sent home were vaguely familiar to letters sent during war time. The letter from May 23, 1950 shows how the expedition was regarded as a war time mission to capture Annapurna in a sense by the mere language used. It reads, “Camp 1: Annapurna glacier. Have decided to attack Annapurna. Victory is ours if we all make up our minds not to lose a single day, not even a single hour” (Hertzog, p. 50). This incredible urgency insinuated with the words, “attack” and “victory” are similar to the words that would be ordinarily used during wartime to communicate battle plans.

 

Another portion of Annapurna that resembled a historical war account was how Hertzog narrated his team’s journey to the summit of Annapurna. He described their ascent as one that need to be “attacked” with some anxiety in order to be successful (Hertzog, p. 98). Also the geographical structures that provided opposition were regarded as “danger zones”, another term that gives resemblance to a war narrative. The drama that accompanied Hertzog and his team’s journey to the summit of Annapurna was to be expected due to his inability to even locate the peak for half of the book.