Krakauer sees exactly one paradigm: the Aristotelian Tragic Hero. Regardless of the circumstances, Krakauer will arrange the narrative such that death is preordained, fates conspire and nobility is stamped out by an unthinking universe. This is one of the reasons he had to leave Seattle (his own assessment of the situation, also in the afterward of Into Thin Air): he turned one of the most independent, individualist pursuits people can take on into a predetermined game of bridge where the proudest adventurer is nothing more than a bridge partner to fate's lead.

Fundamentally, it's an Amundson vs. Shackleton debate: be prepared, be skilled, be funded, be forgotten. Be adventurous, be brash, be romantic, be dead... but be legend. Crowdfund your way up a cheap "killer mountain" in Pakistan with no backup and hope for the best?

Men wanted for hazardous journey. Low wages, bitter cold, long hours of complete darkness. Safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in event of success.

The really stupid thing is Shackleton never said that. Never published it. It started showing up in 1944. But people so.want.that.tragic-fucking-nobility that an ill-fated expedition fraught with planning errors has become a mirror for people to admire their inner Icarus.

Into Thin Air was a finalist for the Pulitzer in 1998. I'd say Beck and Krakauer have done a shitty job of discouraging climbing.