Nanda Devi The Tragic Expedition. John Roskelley. Stackpole ...
N anda D evi The Tragic E xpedition. John Roskelley. Stackpole B ooks, H arrisburg, PA , 1987. 239 pages, illustrated. $16.95. A full accounting o f the events on the 1976 Indo-A m erican expedition described in John R oskelley’s new book N anda D evi The Tragic E xped itio n , if it is understood anyw here, is inscribed deep in the hearts o f the clim bers who survived that troubled ascent. W hat then is R oskelley’s book about, if not a review o f the clim b? He w as, after all, a m em ber o f the expedition. And not ju st on it. N otably, he and two others reached the sum m it, but not m erely by his efforts as he suggests. At first glance, this seem s to be the full story o f the events. The background data, if a bit lurid, sounds authentic. R oskelley recounts what he sensed to be contro versy and conflicting goals in the clim bing party. W e feel privy to a rising dram a. W e get num erous snatches o f dialogue, retained either by a rem arkable m em ory or constructed by a vivid im agination. And it’s here we begin to think som e o f w hat w e’re being told is approxim ate or biased— or both. Still, we are draw n into a thickening plot. He considers the factors contributing to the dire evacuation o f an ailing M arty H oey. He describes the
events and, though confusing in detail, the route leading to the sum m it success, just before the sad death o f U n so eld ’s daughter, N anda D evi, on the m ountain for w hich she was nam ed. There is a lot o f “I” in this book. Too much of it for m e. Though if that were all— too much ego, the book could still hold its ow n. And th ere’s the rub. The sam e single-m indedness that served R oskelley well on the m ountain and allow ed him , Lou Reichardt and Jim States to push a new route up through the difficult N orth Buttress here gets in the way and throw s the scale out o f balance. This is a partial telling, partial both to R oskelley h im self and to his closest allies on the clim b. T here are lengthy accounts o f why he was right about events and others were w rong. M ost notably, he im plies that he alone understood the reasons for H o ey ’s illness and Devi U nsoeld’s death. All too often the “I” in the book becom es, “ I told you so .” That is w here it suffers. And that is w here it is doubly partial. N ot only do we com e away feeling we are reading a story partial to R oskelley, we are reading only his part o f the story. T h ere’s no evidence he consulted other expedition m em bers for their version o f events. If an “A and B team ” really existed on this clim b, as he claim s, one can only w onder w hat the B team , whose collective abilities were certainly equal, thinks o f this decidedly singular point o f view . Any controversy about the expedition will hardly be laid to rest because o f this book. It’s too bad, really. For there is dram a here. As w ith any good literature o f adventure, the potential is present not so m uch for a book about m ountaineering as a book about hum an frailty juxtaposed with feats o f endurance. A nd surely those elem ents form the basis o f R oskelley’s narrative. There is intrigue and m is-com m unication. T here is stealth. Subterfuge. R om ance. T here is the love o f the m ountains, and expecially the love o f this particular m ountain. Yet the book fails to translate the great pow er o f events into great literature. It fails through lack o f perspective. The description o f other points o f view are needed as a counterw eight to the ever-present author. And it suffers from inattention to detail. Lots o f little things add up to distracting neglect. C onflicting statistics, for exam ple. All that verbiage about rope: 4000 feet is all th a t’s to be allow ed. R oskelley w ants 8000. But as the packs are loaded in New D elhi, there’s 10,000 feet, and som e is left behind. C onfusing. N ot that one asks for an encyclopedic account o f the clim b. O r for Shakespeare. But m ore attention to detail w ould have helped here, along with som e editing o f the hyperbole and sophom oric w riting. All those “aw estruck” reactions at the first sight o f N anda Devi. A nd the m elodram atic sum m ations: “This is w hat we had com e so far to attem p t.” O nly detail is the flaw here. It is insufficient art. The book has the flavor o f dram a w ithout poetry. It has the feel o f history w ithout all the facts. The elem ents o f a pow erful hum an docum entary do not hold together for lack of these things. Even so, there is pathos in the events. D espite R oskelley’s self-righteous rem inders o f his m any successes, we are inevitably draw n into his version o f
this now well know n expedition. evidenced by the fact that he felt all. W ith well over a decade to docum ent, there is precious little
How painful this process o f recall can be is com pelled to have the account published at w ork through the em otions and polish the peace about the w hole affair. E rik S. H ansen
events and, though confusing in detail, the route leading to the sum m it success, just before the sad death o f U n so eld ’s daughter, N anda D evi, on the m ountain for w hich she was nam ed. There is a lot o f “I” in this book. Too much of it for m e. Though if that were all— too much ego, the book could still hold its ow n. And th ere’s the rub. The sam e single-m indedness that served R oskelley well on the m ountain and allow ed him , Lou Reichardt and Jim States to push a new route up through the difficult N orth Buttress here gets in the way and throw s the scale out o f balance. This is a partial telling, partial both to R oskelley h im self and to his closest allies on the clim b. T here are lengthy accounts o f why he was right about events and others were w rong. M ost notably, he im plies that he alone understood the reasons for H o ey ’s illness and Devi U nsoeld’s death. All too often the “I” in the book becom es, “ I told you so .” That is w here it suffers. And that is w here it is doubly partial. N ot only do we com e away feeling we are reading a story partial to R oskelley, we are reading only his part o f the story. T h ere’s no evidence he consulted other expedition m em bers for their version o f events. If an “A and B team ” really existed on this clim b, as he claim s, one can only w onder w hat the B team , whose collective abilities were certainly equal, thinks o f this decidedly singular point o f view . Any controversy about the expedition will hardly be laid to rest because o f this book. It’s too bad, really. For there is dram a here. As w ith any good literature o f adventure, the potential is present not so m uch for a book about m ountaineering as a book about hum an frailty juxtaposed with feats o f endurance. A nd surely those elem ents form the basis o f R oskelley’s narrative. There is intrigue and m is-com m unication. T here is stealth. Subterfuge. R om ance. T here is the love o f the m ountains, and expecially the love o f this particular m ountain. Yet the book fails to translate the great pow er o f events into great literature. It fails through lack o f perspective. The description o f other points o f view are needed as a counterw eight to the ever-present author. And it suffers from inattention to detail. Lots o f little things add up to distracting neglect. C onflicting statistics, for exam ple. All that verbiage about rope: 4000 feet is all th a t’s to be allow ed. R oskelley w ants 8000. But as the packs are loaded in New D elhi, there’s 10,000 feet, and som e is left behind. C onfusing. N ot that one asks for an encyclopedic account o f the clim b. O r for Shakespeare. But m ore attention to detail w ould have helped here, along with som e editing o f the hyperbole and sophom oric w riting. All those “aw estruck” reactions at the first sight o f N anda Devi. A nd the m elodram atic sum m ations: “This is w hat we had com e so far to attem p t.” O nly detail is the flaw here. It is insufficient art. The book has the flavor o f dram a w ithout poetry. It has the feel o f history w ithout all the facts. The elem ents o f a pow erful hum an docum entary do not hold together for lack of these things. Even so, there is pathos in the events. D espite R oskelley’s self-righteous rem inders o f his m any successes, we are inevitably draw n into his version o f
this now well know n expedition. evidenced by the fact that he felt all. W ith well over a decade to docum ent, there is precious little
How painful this process o f recall can be is com pelled to have the account published at w ork through the em otions and polish the peace about the w hole affair. E rik S. H ansen
