David Roberts is one of my favorite climber-authors. I generally like his take on things and have only disliked one or two of his books. "True Summit: What really happened on the legendary ascent of Annapurna" was a bit of a misfire for me -- I felt like the revelations about the first ascent of this Himalayan 8,000 meter peak, weren't all that interesting.

To be fair, I'm apparently the only person on Earth who didn't particularly care for Maurice Herzog's account of the climb (despite his book "Annapurna" being beloved in mountaineering circles.) I've read nearly all of the other books Roberts mentions in this one and preferred them all to Herzog's enthusiastic account.

There are plenty of accounts of discord in mountaineering books -- and I've enjoyed them greatly -- but the discord Roberts mentions is seems so pat and usual that it really didn't make for very interesting reading. The story of the climb, told by Roberts is fine enough, but I definitely wouldn't consider this one of his better books. ( )

Maurice Herzog was the first person to reach the summit of Annapurna, one of the 8,000 meter peaks. The expedition he guided in 1950 suffered tremendously on the way down, as did Herzog who lost all fingers and toes to frostbite. His account of the journey was a testimony to the team-building self-sacrifice and wonderful spirit of the four mountaineers (less was said of the Sherpas who carried Herzog and Lachenal for miles on the descent.) His colleagues, Lionel Terray, Gaston Rebuffat and Louis Lachenal, were successful climbers in their own right, and Terray’s and Lachenal’s mountaineering books are considered classics. Herzog’s book, which he dictated from his hospital bed, made him a national hero in France. The question Roberts raises in his book is whether Herzog’s account is true.

Herzog made himself into a hero with canny public relations and perhaps by not emphasizing the important role his colleagues played in the ascent. He made each of them sign contracts not to publish before they left. That he was self-aggrandizing is not in doubt. In my experience, mountaineers who write books about their feats all tend to have blinders on, completely understandable when you consider their isolation, even when in a group, as they make the climb.

David Roberts compared the individual accounts of each climbers diary with Herzogs published version and notes what Herzog changed or omitted. He intersperses his narrative with comments of his own reflections about climbing, and he then uses the other climbers' reports and diaries to dismantle Herzog's self-aggrandizing recollections. In the end, I think the author is perhaps making a mountain from a valley. He says it best himself:

Surely the discrepancies begged critics to accuse him of dishonesty. The new, more self- serving version might cast a better light on Herzog, but it was an open invitation to readers such as myself to call his rewriting bluff. The third possibility, I thought, was that this is indeed how memory works, in all its fallible reinvention of the past. After nearly fifty years, Herzog’s emotions about those dramatic days high on Annapurna had perhaps restructured his memories… These reconstructions need not be cynical, or even fully conscious, on Herzog’s part. They could be the fruit of memory’s seizing again and again on disturbing, pivotal events, reshaping them with each rehearsal, trying to find meaning where there was only happenstance.

A terrific book for anyone who likes to read about mountaineering and even, perhaps, those interested in the malleability (not to mention fallibility) of memory. ( )

Before setting off to attempt to climb Annapurna, the expedition members were required to sign a contract agreeing to publish nothing about the trip for five years after the expedition. This left the expedition leader, Maurice Herzog, free to completely control the account of the expedition that reached the public. Herzog's tale fired the imaginations of countless people, inspiring many influential climbers to begin their careers. The only problem with Herzog's tale is that it was a tale. Herzog portrayed the expedition as a perfect adventure, with himself as the wise and capable leader who kept his unruly team together and who brilliantly made every correct decision needed to "conquer" the mountain.

Using primary sources, most notably a diary of the expedition, interviews and published sources, David Roberts pieces together an account of the Annapurna expedition that reveals the other members of the team as the brilliant, expert climbers that they were and which gives long overdue credit to Louis Lachenal, the climber who summited with Herzog, as well as to Lionel Terray and Gaston Rebouffat, whose expertise and skills made the summit push possible, and who enabled Lachenal and Herzog to survive the descent.

Although book reads a little less smoothly that most of Roberts' writing, primarily due to the copious inclusion of quotes from other sources, it should be on the to read list of any climbing afficianado, especially anyone who was captivated by Herzog's account. Roberts takes considerable care not to denigrate Herzog's very legitimate accomplishments as a leader and as a climber. For me, the insight into the characters and contributions of Lachenal, Terray and Rebouffat (as well as the other members of the expedition) was a major source of enjoyment. Discovering these men through Roberts' efforts brought the Annapurna expedition to life for me. ( )