Arlene Blum’s
writing style in Annapurna: A Woman’s Place contrasts with Herzog’s
narrative. Although both Herzog and Blum describe the organizational
difficulties that they encountered during their ascent of Annapurna, I felt
that Blum’s narrative put more emphasis on her emotional involvement with her
teammates. She approaches the expedition from an emotional standpoint as she
describes her interaction as a team leader with the rest of the group, “the
expedition needed a strong leader but not a dictator.” (29) Her narrative
demonstrates her insecurities as a team leader and contrasts with Herzog’s
imperialistic narrative. Meanwhile she constantly seems to question her
leadership skills, Herzog’s narrative demonstrates his confidence as a leader.
Blum’s narrative
is more accessible to the armchair adventurer. She details the woman’s
expedition systematically. She continuously details how the team’s involvement
both organizational and emotional made the expedition successful. Herzog on the
contrary doesn’t find it necessary to share extensive details about the group
and describes the ascent from a much more individualistic perspective.
Although Blum’s
writing style seems directed to a universal reader, I found Herzog’s Annapurna
to be a more engaging story. Herzog, through his almost nauseating
descriptions, manages to transmit the harsh conditions that his team encountered in
the Annapurna.
No comments:
Post a Comment