In a way this book does something we have done in discussion all semester. Seeing that this book is written in 2000, it seems almost that the 1990’s and early 2000’s have brought an age of questioning the pasts mountaineering excursions, much like the fact that we are all taking a ‘history of mountaineering course,’ and discussing what really could have happened, and also maybe where exaggerating or faint memories come into play. David Roberts discusses the motives, and truth behind Maurice Herzog’s ‘Annapurna’ and if the happenings that Herzog writes about are actually valid. It seems that since reading ‘Annapurna’ we have come back to it in class, as a reference for the egotistical side of mountaineering, and the literary aspect of it. We seem to look at Herzog as one of the mountaineers that wants the adventure for the story, especially since he claimed the right to the story before his fellow climbers could as well. With that being an aspect of the ‘Annapurna’ climb, it is hard not to look at the mission critically, making David Roberts writings about the ascent eye opening in the climbing world.

Through reading ‘Annapurna’ the literary element is seen as romantic, and endearing. Herzog writes about the journey is a very optimistic way, giving the mountain a beauty that he wants to get across to the reader. Reading my post about ‘Annapurna,’ I came across a quote I found interesting, even more now in relation to ‘True Summit.’ Herzog writes “‘We’d go if we had to crawl there.’ Let me put it clearly on record that their zeal for the adventure was entirely unselfish. From the start every one of them knew that nothing belonged to him and that he must expect nothing on his return.” (Herzog, pg. 4). This is an particularly interesting message from Herzog in that maybe he was trying to bring unity to his writings about his team, and bring a positive message, to outweigh any possible negative messages about the adventure. In fear of any criticism, Herzog takes the rights to write first about the excursion up ‘Annapurna’ and Roberts then later questions the excursion and the ‘true happenings.’

Through the whole book, I enjoy Roberts’ end notes on the journey, writing “That Herzog’s tale turns out not to be the whole truth of Annapurna in no way undercuts the fundamental heroism of its protagonists” (Roberts, pg. 224). While we discuss the validity of journeys, motives, and emotions of members of excursions, I like that sometimes we bring it back in, like Roberts does, and recognizes the heroism, and the bravery, and genuine attitude of the climbers. He also writes “No one ever questioned Herzog’s courage or perseverance” which is something to remember through this book, that while questioning of the validity of ‘Annapurna’ is simply a literary analysis, Herzog’s motives seem to be pure and his courage is still present no matter what happened, as well as his fellow climbers(Roberts, pg. 224).