At first, Fallen Giants proved to be a very dry and mundane read, with the first couple chapters introducing the readers to geographical data of the Himalayan region, as well as an abundance of uneventful historical details. At times it became quite difficult to keep reading, as Isserman and Weaver did very little to intrigue the readers by omitting any sense of excitement. However, as I continued to read on, it became more interesting near chapter 3, when Mallory was officially introduced and the authors began to give an engaging account of his attempt at Everest.

Mallory shared in common a lot of similar traits that previous mountaineers had shown, which makes me think that at this point in time, mountaineering attracted (for the most part) a certain type of person. Like Mummery and Conway, Mallory seemed (at first) to be reckless and a bit naive. His constant obsession with trying to make a mark in the world, and gain a sort of hero status, not only drove him to volunteer in the war, but eventually to attempt Mt Everest.

It seems as though Everest became even more sought after, after the war ended. Soldiers that were lucky enough to survive, saw this as an opportunity to enter back into a world that revolved around perilousness, camaraderie, and sacrifice. According to the authors, this was the point where “Everest became a national imperative, a supremely elevated point of redemption for a sacrificed generation (pg 84)”. Up until this point, it had seemed that mountaineering was dominated by efforts of countries and their military to claim another victory. Although heroism and fame still played a huge role in the desire to ascend, it seemed to be of a more individual desire now, rather than national.

Overall, I’ve enjoyed the book thus far. Reading about the different personalities and reasons as to why many have attempted, and continue to attempt, such dangerous and possibly fatal climbs, has been very insightful and intriguing. The biggest question that the first portion of the book has left me with, is whether mountaineering has had a positive or negative affect on society, particularly on the land itself? And as mountaineering grows and technology continues to advance, is there a point where it will all become too much and eventually destroy the very thing that captured our attention in the first place? The discovery of new peaks and the urge to conquer them all has unfortunately brought along with it, a crowd of chaos. What once was feared, and therefore remote, has since become developed and in some peoples eyes, “ruined”. For instance, “of all the Himalayan ranges, the Karakoram was once the most remote and inaccessible; but with the completion of the Karakoram Highway in 1978 it has been laid open to the world and annually infested by thousands or trekkers and mountaineers (pg 6)”. Not to mention the garbage and unpleasant site that the base camp of Everest has become. According to Rousseau, what makes mountains so sublime is that “man yet lived in an uncivilized and therefore uncorrupted state of nature (pg 27)”. As an avid hiker and mountain lover, I personally can’t imagine life without being able to hike and enjoy the breath taking views that the mountains provide us with. So I understand the desire and continual need to conquer new summits. However, at what point are we taking it too far and subtracting from the raw beauty of it all? By creating these base camps and highways to make these treks possible, is it making these mountains less appealing?