The entire time I was reading this book, all I kept thinking was…mic drop.

In True Summit, David Roberts reveals the truth of what really happened when Maurice Herzog summited Annapurna on June 3, 1950. Robert’s does a great job starting off the book by re-introducing the summit events the way it was told by Herzog in his own book, Annapurna. As most readers of this book, I’m assuming, have previously read or heard about the initial Annapurna story, Robert’s doesn’t waste much time re-creating it before diving into the facts unknown. Robert’s hypocritical tone gives the book some life and kept me intrigued, wanting to read on.

What makes this whole “fraud” an interesting and fairly big deal, is that fact that Annapurna has had such an immense impact on the mountaineering world. Robert’s even admits that it was that very book that sparked his interest in mountaineering, and claims “Annapurna hit me hard” (p 23). Uncovering lie after lie while also revealing undisclosed facts, Robert’s shuts down Herzog’s story, while admitting that it was “a hard thing to have one’s hero of forty years’ standing dismantled before one’s eyes” (p 24). Robert’s backs up his claims with a substantial amount of credible evidence, including visits to Rebuffat’s widow, Francoise, and Lachenal’s personal diary from the climb.

Robert’s not only provides ‘behind-the-scenes’ facts, but also criticizes Herzog’s writing in Annapurna. On p 47, Robert’s provides some dialogue from Herzogs book, and questions its credibility on the fact that Herzog seemed to be able to remember “every exchange down to the exact word” even months after it all happened. Even in the dialogue itself from Annapurna, Robert’s points out that no individual voices emerge, leaving one to assume its been concocted (p 47).

However, Robert’s main argument regarding Herzog’s actual writing itself, is how he remains so optimistic, with “not a trace of bitterness or self-pity” (p 21). Despite lost fingers and toes, and many horrible catastrophes after another, Herzog seems to continually praise the amount of “loyalty, teamwork, courage, and perseverance” (pg 23), which highly contradicts Lachenal and Rebuffat’s versions. One extremely effective example of this, is where Robert’s provides a quote from Herzog describing how “the ceremony was deeply moving” (p 32), while on the next page providing a quote from Rebuffat’s notes that showed a deep disdain towards Herzog and the so called ‘ceremony’. Here, Rebuffat is seen mocking the ceremony, by calling it “De-personalization…a certain Nazification” (p 33).

With all this said, it raises an important question. Do you think Herzog was justified in his actions to provide a much needed sense of “victory” for the French, considering the humiliating loss suffered by them in WWII? Do you think the need for a national hero for the French, was important and necessary enough to turn Annapurna into “a campaign of national honour” (p 32)? Does the end justify the means? I can’t help but immediately think of Lance Armstrong, and the pain and humiliation that was brought to not only himself, family, teammates, and country, but also the sport itself.

Robert’s passion for the real story to be heard shines through in his disappointment and sarcasm, finishing the book with a quote from Lachenal: “That march to the summit was not a matter of national glory, it was une affair de cordee”. And…mic drop.