Character Analysis: Into Thin Air

Viewing and listening about an event greatly differs from actually experiencing it. In the bestselling novel Into Thin Air by Jon Krakauer, the reader is placed in the position of Krakauer climbing the arduous expedition on Mount Everest. During the trip, emotions are hurled left and right. At some points jokes are made and at others terrible mistakes are created. Krakauer’s mood changes throughout the entire story as it continues. He starts off being glad to have been given the opportunity to go on the expedition on Mount Everest especially since he would be accompanied by the prominent mountain guide Rob Hall. The events during the trip both kept the reader at the edge of their seat and at some times Krakauer's emotions were shared with the

reader. Towards the end of the trip, Krakauer had sort of became a different type of man, he had changed from his happy emotions to a depressed state because of certain deaths and predicaments that he believes he could have prevented. Due to these events that caused his depression, criticism and flak started to arise and attack Krakauer for not doing anything to help the now dead climbers.
Yet, there are multiple reasons as to why Krakauer and other surviving members of the group had been given so much of this criticism and negative press.

The epilogue of the story displays many people that criticize the survivors including Krakauer. These criticisms came in the form of letters that were aimed directly towards Krakauer and his actions. A letter from “a lawyer from Florida” criticized Krakauer on his actions towards Harris and how “[his failure to act] played a direct role in the death of Andy Harris” (Krakauer 296). This criticized how Krakauer had messed up on the realization that Harris was actually dead instead of mistaking him for Martin Adams who had actually fell off an edge and had survived it completely unharmed. The Florida women also showed criticism towards Krakauer’s actions toward Namba in saying that she agrees that “[He was] a mere 350 yards away, huddled inside a tent...concerned only with [his] own safety”(283). She criticizes that his lack of action towards Namba was disgraceful and purely a foolish act. It shows how he could have done something and the Florida women then tops it off with “I don’t know how he can live with himself” which adds more to her anger and frustration of how he dealt with the situation. Through the eyes of the Florida women we can see one way as to why the survivors, mainly Krakauer, were met with a massive amount of hate and

criticism.
The next example of criticism is also shown within the epilogue.

It is another letter except this one sort of hit close to home with Krakauer. This is because the letter was actually written by the sister of Scott Fischer, a guide that had passed during the same expedition as Krakauer’s. Fischer’s sister, Lisa, didn’t really criticize Krakauer’s actions during the expedition but instead after it. She reminds Krakauer with how wrong he was in the Harris situation where he “[caused] much grief and anguish to his family and friends…” (297). However, she does this in order to bring up a point in her criticism. Along with the mistaking of Harris she also mentions how Krakauer had ruined Lopsang, one of the Sherpas on the trip, by “tattle-tales” of who he actually was. So, these “speculation” mistakes adds to her main idea of criticism towards Krakauer. She criticizes him greatly on how he had acted after the expedition had ended. Lisa states that “I am reading [your] ego frantically struggling to make sense out of what happened” (Krakauer 297). This criticism is showing how Krakauer is going to get nowhere by just thinking about what had happened during the expedition. The two build up examples show how in past events of speculating and thinking he had been very wrong to the point where someone had pretty much due to his speculations. In short, she is telling him to stop speculating and worrying about other things he could have done because those thoughts are never going to

change anything since the deaths of people cannot be just forgotten.
When speaking about all the other survivors which also include Krakauer, they are criticized because of how they had treated the sacred land of Mount Everest or “Sagarmathaji”. In the epilogue of the story, an internet message is shown discussing of how Mount Everest was desecrated by the climbers. The message criticizes how the survivors had “[violated] every limb of her body by standing on top of her, crowing in victory, and dirtying and polluting her bosom.” (Krakauer 299). However, the person who typed up the message had not only criticized the actions of the climbers but also the actions of the Sherpas. They talk about how the Sherpas allowed the desecration of the mountain because they had helped and guided those who wanted to climb the mountain. Therefore, another reason as to why survivors of the land had received criticism was their treatment of the sacred land along with how the Sherpas did not do anything to stop their actions.
After the 1996 expedition of Mount Everest conveyed in the novel Into Thin Air emotions were all over the place. Jon Krakauer, the writer of the novel, shows how his feelings towards everything had changed after the expedition had ended. Not only had the emotions of the climbers changed, but people who hadn’t climbed had some words to say about the surviving crew that had finished the expedition. These people criticized the survivors for multiple reasons. First, Krakauer’s actions towards mistaking Andy Harris for Martin Adams was criticized because the mistake was a huge one that could have lent a hand to Harris’ death. Krakauer’s lack of action towards helping Namba also was criticized because of how he was barely any distance away and could have, in the eyes of the critics, easily helped her. The description of how confused Krakauer was within his novel was also criticized because his thoughts and depressed remarks were never going “revive” the dead expeditioners. The majority of the survivors along with the Sherpas were also criticized because of how they had desecrated the sacred land of Mount Everest. Although these critics never lived the lives of the climbers, they still have the right to their opinion on the survivors and some of their criticisms actually do make sense. Finally, we can see why the survivors of the 1996 Mount Everest expedition were so harshly criticized.