One of the things that I am enjoying about Touching my Father's Soul (though I could see myself getting tired of in the future) is the constant comparison between Jamling's expedition and experiences, and his father's. One of the things that strikes me is how closely Jamling tries to imitate the actions of his father; he carries loads, he works well with both the expedition members and the sherpas and he does his best to find the spirituality that his father had late in life. One of the reasons that I think the comparisons focus so intently on the spiritual similarities is because of the vast differences in gear, tactics and motivations between the 1953 and 1996 expeditions. While the younger Norgay acknowledges these differences, he focuses more on the deeper meaning of his climb in the context of trying to reconnect with his father.

I have learned more about Buddhism in the first half of Touching my Father's Soul than I have in the previous three books combined. Obviously this is because of the authors perspective but it explains a lot of the motivations and rationale behind many Sherpa decisions on past expeditions; the burning of Juniper before setting foot on the mountain and the deep superstitions that prevented Sherpas from rescuing Beck and Yasuko on the South Col. The deep connection that Sherpas feel with the Himalaya and especially Miyolangsangma raise even more questions about the commercialization of Everest and the Sherpas' role in supporting it. Despite his desire to connect with his father and follow in his footsteps, Jamling is a member of an expedition with "non-pure" motivations and for me this brings up a conflict that Jamling has yet to address.

The Journey versus The Destination

Reading Touching My Father's Soul I felt like I was reading about a personal journey rather than an adventure narrative. This was the result of the first third of the book detailing Norgay’s life and personal preparations and Norgay’s focus on religious and spiritual life.  That is not to say that this book is any less of an adventure narrative than the other books we have read this year, only that I have an expectation that adventure narratives will be focused primarily on the action itself.

Throughout this class we have been asking three main questions:

·      What can mountains do for those who climb them?

·      Why climb mountains?

·      Is climbing a dangerous mountain worth the risk?

This book clearly addressed all of these questions.  For Norgay, climbing Everest is about the journey both physical and spiritual rather than the summit. Unlike other readings, which have primarily viewed the landscape as a means to reach the summit, Norgay reflects on the landscape in terms of how it relates to his religion and how it connects to his father.  Considering Norgay’s account it these questions are relatively easy to answer. For Norgay, climbing Mount Everest provides a connection to his father.  It helps him to better understand and connect with his father.  It also allows him to reflect on stories he shares or has heard from his father.  In this way the mountain is acting as a conduit through which Norgay can connect to his father to better understand himself.  The final question regarding risk is a little more difficult to climb.  This becomes especially clear after May 10^th when Norgay and the IMAX expedition must decide if they will attempt to summit or not.  Norgay relies on his connection to Buddhism and his father to justify his decision to make an attempt at the summit.  This new, less summit focused, understanding of climbing was very refreshing. 

            Touching My Father’s Soul was also interesting in it’s recounting of the 1996 Everest Disaster.  Because Norgay was somewhat removed from the incident, but also was following what happened real time, he gives a clear recounting that feels less stressful than that of Krakauer, despite clearly being very troubled and saddened by the events. He is also able to analyze what happened during the ascent and the rescue and acknowledge potential criticisms without blaming anyone of impure intentions or gross negligence. Most importantly, I felt that Norgay did a better job of acknowledging the amazing effort that Sherpas and climbers put into the rescue attempts.

            Overall, Norgay’s narrative has been the most distinct and possibly most interesting adventure narrative we have read this semester. Norgay provides a view of mountain climbing that differs significantly from the narratives of western climbers. I was especially drawn in by Norgay’s focus on the experience of the climb over reaching the summit.

Ueli Steck Interview

He talks about realizing the risk of climbing Annapurna after the matter which is very interesting.

Also, how lost he feels now that he is finished climbing. I would consider him as the true mountaineer that David Roberts is talking about.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cltryBksm3w&noredirect=1#t=97

"To resolve may be only to die"

This is a quote from David Roberts in The Mountain of My Fear

"Hence the mountains, in a sense, could mean more to me than people could. But what sort of relationship is possible between a man and a mountain? If any, an obviously one-sided one, and if the mountain only mirrors the man, if the route he chooses is not made out of rock snow, and ice so much as out of some tortured translation of his ego, then that clean love he can feel toward his objective would become a barren narcissism. 'Have we vanquished an enemy?' Mallory said 'None but ourselves.' Put that way, it sounds noble, it rings with aphoristic authority. But what would happen, I wonder, if the self could be vanquished? What would be left of life but to live it out in smug lethargy? Could any man who had vanquished himself ever want to climb another mountain? [...] I need to believe, if only to explain climbing, that the dissatisfactions of life ultimately become its joys, that to resolve may be only to die, not to answer" (233).

This isn't a book on our reading list, but one that I am very captivated by. I wanted to share this quote because it relates to our discussion in class on Thursday. In this passage, David addresses the question, why climb? And in turn, his answer also addresses the question, what can a mountain do?

David is working against a notion that people climb, not just to conquer a mountain, but to conquer the self by reference to Mallory's famous quote. Instead of accept Mallory's answer, David wonders what it would mean to vanquish the self? He believes that doing so - to live out life in a smug lethargy - would not be characteristic of a mountaineer. Rather, what is characteristic of mountaineers, David suggests, is the lack of complacency, a resilient self that is never vanquished. The italicized passage suggests pretty explicitly that the only resolution to a climbers self may be death. I have to wonder here if David is over-glorifying the relationship between death and the mountain climber, but I am tempted to say he is getting it right. That the 'true' mountaineer will never be vanquished or satisfied until they are dead.

I see David's analysis as an answer to the question, why climb? For David, you climb because you are a mountaineer with the characteristic feature of a restless, un-vanquished self that will not be tamed until tamed by death. This answer reaches deeply into the question, what do mountains do? As David explains, the mountain becomes a mirror for the mountaineer. It is a mirror that endlessly teases the unrelenting self of a mountaineer or it shatters /scares away those who are not of the same type.

A Sherpa's Point of View

Ok.  So this is the fourth book we have read about mountaineering, and I am getting getting kinda tired of reading a hundred or so pages about the damn journey to base camp.  It kinda just drags on...ugh.  Anyways enough ranting about that.  What I do like about Norgay's book is that we finally get a sherpa's point of view about climbing the high peaks of the world.  But not just any sherpa, the son of Tenzing Norgay!  This adds another level to this book, the father-son conflict/relationship, that I find interesting and enjoyable.  This, combined with Norgay's narrative, makes for a very different read than Krakauer's book.  Instead of reading about a harrowing climb and descent of the world's highest peak that quickly turned into a disaster, Norgay's book is more a spiritual journey that Norgay undertakes in order to commune with the soul of his father, and to better understand his life.  I can't help but feel moved by Norgay's quest to understand his father because he just wants to connect with him on a level he never was able to while he was alive.  Tenzing never wanted his son to climb, and instead wanted him to go to school and make something more of himself, which is clear when Tenzing tells Jamling, "I climbed Everest so you wouldn't have to."  Yet, the lure of climbing like his father called to Norgay his entire life, and I respect his choice to carry on with it after his father died.  Therefore, despite a very long journey to base camp (ugh), I have enjoyed reading this book as it is enthralling in a different way than Krakauer's, and even Blum's and Herzog's stories.

Also, as I mentioned, we get a sherpa's point of view of climbing Everest through Norgay's words.  I find it very interesting how spiritual Norgay is, and his reverence for Everest's spirits.  I also have enjoyed reading about his interactions with porters and other sherpas, which are so different than that of Herzog's, Blum's, and Krakauer's.  Norgay knows how they act, like the porters trying to get an advance in pay so they could give up carrying loads half way through the trek, and he shares a culture with them.  This gave me the reader an even greater understanding of the world of mountaineering from my armchair, even when you consider that I have already read three mountaineering books.  But I wonder if anyone else feels this way.  Did Norgay's book give anyone a greater understanding of the climbing culture present on Everest?  Did his quest to understand his father's life touch anyone else?  Or was this just one more book about Everest that didn't really do much other than give the reader another account of the 1996 disaster?    

High Ground

Worth the watch (and WAY better than the Into Thin Air made-for-TV movie):

(it's on streaming Netflix, fyi)

Eleven wounded warriors returning from Iraq and Afghanistan join an expedition to climb the 20,000-foot Mount Lobuche. Led by blind adventurer Erik Weihenmayer and a team of Everest summiters, they set out on an emotional climb to reach the top.

Geology of the Himalayas

Here's some cool stuff on the geology of the Himalayas! I thought everyone might enjoy learning a bit about the mountains' history to complement learning about the history of people's relationships with them.

A US Geological Survey Article:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/himalaya.html

2 videos showing India colliding with Asia to form the Himalayas:
http://emvc.geol.ucsb.edu/3_downloads/M1GTect/dContCollisionMovies/IndiaAsiaCollision.mov

http://www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/visualizations/es1105/es1105page01.cfm?chapter_no=visualization