So it would seem that Herzog’s account of his famed 1950’s expedition was malarky positing him as the hero and complete leader of this tight well-oiled climbing machine. Naturally his exploits were that of heroic lore which would forever cement him within French climbing history and secure him in a nice cushy political job for life. Alas, it seems that Herzog just had a huge ego and his account truly just supported French nationalist propaganda along with his summit of Annapurna garnering him the fame that he so desperately sought. Flash forward fifty years and David Roberts book True Summit sheds some light on the famed expedition that has become such a staple in mountaineering literature. Instead of completely tearing apart Herzog’s account Roberts instead focuses on recounting different perspectives from other climbers by reading through their journals and re-interviewing Herzog himself being the only living member at the time. Roberts sheds light on what actually happened and does a commendable job of giving credit to Terrey, Lachenal, and Rebuffat who were indeed accomplished climbers. From the accounts of the other members apart of the Annapurna expedition much of what Herzog writes about in his account is completely contradicted and sometimes fabricated in the eyes of the others that participated on the climb with him.

Most notably it seemed that the expedition ran into its fair share of personal problems and there was constant bickering and arguing among the members of the team. The comradery among the expedition members that Herzog recounts in his book seems to be nothing more than added detail used to push the French nationalistic narrative that was so important to not only France but other Western Powers. This begs the question should we be more skeptical of classic mountaineering literature? Before this semester, I had heard about how good Annapurna was. But now after gaining some insight on the political landscape and nationalistic agenda’s that bled over to mountaineering exploits and reading True Summit The book of Annapurna will forever be tainted in my eyes.

True Summit shows how mountaineering literature should be questioned to a degree, as what’s written on the pages doesn’t always accurately reflect the accounts of one’s exploits. This raises the question should we as readers hold those responsible for mountaineering literature to a higher standard of literary accuracy? Or are we content with these epic thrilling page turners that may be stretching some details in order to sell copies of the book? Either way, I think that Roberts book shows that humans are flawed in regards to being able to accurately reflect personal accounts especially when put into such stressful and deadly conditions that high altitude mountaineering presents. I must admit after reading True Summit that my opinions about Herzog as a person have diminished more so now due to the fact that he took such great measures to recount his account before anybody else when it appears in actuality that he fabricated or straight up lied about certain details of his book. After reading Roberts re working of the Herzog Annapurna expedition it makes me question a lot of the validity of other mountaineering literature that we have encountered during this semester. Throughout the semester, we as a class seem to keep running into that question in our weekly class meetings. What should we accept as fact? and what should we question when it comes to high altitude mountaineering literature?