On the one hand, we have the classic mountaineering novel Annapurna which has a lot of the classic mountaineering rhetoric that we have been discussing for much of this semester. The role of masculinity and Herzog’s role as the leader of the expedition i e his insistence that he be the first man up the mountain and the last man down; ultimately his attitude leaves him at the mercy of his team as needs their help in the end to survive. The Transformation through struggle as Herzog describes his transformation and moment of bliss while atop of Annapurna until becoming aware of his bodies struggles. Lastly, the notion that the whole climbing expedition is a military endeavor and is treated as such with the way the expedition plans out their climb. Of course, since the books publication, there has been debate topics about the treatment of the native sherpas, whether or not Herzog was a reliable narrator and after reading Social Climbing on Annapurna, it’s easy to pick apart Herzog’s classical mountaineering tale. I do tend to agree with much Rak’s arguments about elitist male culture and the associations with mountaineering. The general sexism that exist in mountaineering and its exclusion of the female narrative from climbing history. However, One must keep in mind the context in which these books are written in.

If we look at the history of mountaineering we can see that it has been a predominantly male exclusive sport, usually only accessible to the wealthy and entitled male masculine junky. In the early twentieth century humanity and especially the western world was not as progressive when it comes to racism and acceptance so the racist tones that exist in these novels is not at all shocking. Is it fair to judge the climbers and their books with the same scrutiny and p.c agenda that we subject everything to nowadays.

Rak raised some interesting points such as the social and political strife that women have faced in there pursuit to be accepted within the mountaineering world. As well as the treatment of native peoples in regards to their roles in mountain climbing history. But one could make the argument that women and minorities have faced the sexist and racist inequality not just in mountaineering but in everyday life. Mountaineering, in general, was born on the idea of the masculine hero going out to find himself defeating the cruel attempts of mother nature only to overcome them and triumph.Much of mountaineering literature out there definitely plays right into that narrative. However as the sport progresses so too does the views on feminism and the roles of female climbers and their contribution to the sport. I found Rak’s analysis on the Wanderer painting slightly reaching for a comparison to high mountaineering expeditions and its reflections on its literature. again I would argue that the painting is simply a representation of the time period and although it’s a faceless male represented within the painting, it would be a stretch to tack an exclusionary and masculine pure agenda behind the painting. Overall the Rak article and Annapurna seem to represent two ends of the spectrum when it comes to gender issues racial equality and big egotistical male narratives within the world of high altitude mountaineering and the literature and controversy that it creates.