I feel that the readings for this week are a kind of high point in the class. In Fallen Giants the final first successful ascent of Everest is documented with the recounting of Hillary and Tenzing reaching the top after decades of various international failed attempts. Then we also read one of, if not the, most famous mountaineering books written Annapurna.

In Fallen Giants we explore the era of the supposed “Golden Age” of mountaineering in the Himalaya. I believe it is just nostalgically called that because it was the time that equipment was advanced enough to actually prove useful and to take the edge off of the harsh punishing environments of life that far above sea level. I do not believe that it would have been labeled as “golden” if there had not been so many successful ascents of mountains at that time; the tactics of climbing where not all that different there was still the siege school and the minimalist school of climbing. It was the successes that really set this era apart from the earlier attempts of the twentieth century, and the fact that it was still an exclusive field of sports.

This exclusivity starts to be taken away from mountaineering after the time as explored in the article Social Climbing on Annapurna. Climbing was for a long time the pastime occupation (and sometimes profession) of privileged white men. We see this disappearing after the “Golden Age” (if it really can be called that); mountaineering is being infiltrated by men of lower economic classes and now women as well. With women only expeditions it is a threat to the image of privileged masculinity that mountaineering has come to represent. Men have built a sort of escapist sanctuary around climbing and these expeditions of women and women coming in on other expeditions is challenge the atmosphere of the homosocial environment. Of course sexism comes into play. I find this all very infuriating that it is a deal at all to men that women climb. Does it really “ruin” the atmosphere, or is it just a big deal because it is being made a big deal? I had a mentor who said frequently “It’s only an issue if you make it one” I feel that applies greatly to the climbing atmosphere.

As for Annapurna there were several things that particularly struck a concern to me. Firstly it seems that Herzog remembered everything in vivid detail, including a lot of dialogue. I wonder how he wrote this. Did he keep a diary? I would think that would help quite a deal if he did, but it’s the clarity with which he recalls everything that strikes a skeptical chord within me. He sustained some grievous conditions and was without supplemental oxygen and seems to recall the events of summiting, coming down, being trapped, and being carried down rather causally and vividly. I do not know if even he had kept a diary to the point before the ascent if he would still be able to recalled the fallowing events as clearly as he did.

Also the ascent seems too easy. I know it was probably very difficult but considering how long it took them to simply find the mountain it seems a little unbelievable that they would have been able to find a way up so fast. It took decades to ascend Everest and while it may be taller, Annapurna is technically much more difficult. With the small window of time that Herzog’s team had and the after that they were really the first ones to really try to climb Annapurna it just seems a little unbelievable or just really anticlimactic that they were able to ascend so quickly.