Chapter 24 Epilogue USA Seattle

△ Ground level 82M, November 29, 1996 * Now I dream of the soft touch of a woman, the song of a bird, the gash of the soil cracking between my fingers, and the brilliant green of the plants I have worked so hard to cultivate.I'm looking for land where I'll fill it with deer, wild boar, birds, poplars, and sycamores, and build a pond where the ducks will come and the fish will spring up in the evening light to swallow the insects.There must be paths in this forest, and you and I will sink into the soft folds of the earth.We'll walk down to the water and lie on the grass, and there'll be a little nondescript sign that says this is the real world, young man, we're all in it Traven

Bowden "Blood Orchid" Charles Bowden, Blood Orchid □□□ Several people who climbed Everest in May 1996 told me that they had managed to recover from the tragedy.In mid-November I received a letter from Kasisk saying: It took me a few months to develop a positive outlook.But I can finally think positively.Mount Everest was the worst experience of my life.But things have changed.Now is now.I focus on thinking positively.I have gained many important insights about life, others and myself.I think now I can see life more clearly.Now I see things I've never seen before. Kasisker just returned from spending the weekend with Withers in Dallas.Withers had his right arm amputated below the elbow after being evacuated by helicopter from the West Cirque.Four fingers and the thumb of the left hand were also amputated.His nose was amputated, and flesh and bone were cut from his ears and forehead to reshape.Kasisk mentioned the visit to Withers:

Both sad and uplifting.It was sad to see Withers like this: a reshaped nose, a scar on his face, unable to take care of himself, wondering if he would ever be able to practice medicine again, etc.But it's amazing to see a person who can take it all and is ready to move on with life.He is overcoming it all.He will win.Withers has nothing but good things to say about everyone, and never complains.You may have different political views from him, but you'll be as proud as I am to see him handle it all.One day the positive value of the matter to him will emerge. I was deeply moved and envious that people like Withers and Kasisker clearly viewed the experience with optimism.Maybe after a while I'll be able to find some positive meaning in these sufferings, but right now I can't.

When I wrote these words, it had been half a year since I returned from Nepal. During the six months, I never missed Mount Everest for more than two or three hours a day.I couldn't even sleep, and the images of mountaineering and the aftermath of the incident have been occupying my dreams. After the September issue of "Outdoor" magazine published the report on my expedition, the magazine office received a large number of response letters.Most were supportive and sympathetic to us survivors, but there were also many harsh critics.For example, a Florida attorney rebuked: Krakul admitted that Harris' death was directly related to my actions (or inability to act), and all I can say is that I feel the same way.I also agree with what he said (he) was only more than 300 meters away from her, lying in the tent, and did not take any action. I don't know how he can feel at ease.

Some of the most outrageous letters were written by relatives of the deceased, and were the most disturbing to read.Fisher's sister wrote: From what you have written, it seems that you now have an uncanny ability to know exactly what is going on in the mind and feeling of each member of the expedition.Now that you have returned home safe and healthy, you have criticized the judgment of others, analyzing their intentions, behavior, personality, and motivations.You judge the leaders, Sherpas, clients on what to do and arrogantly accuse them of their faults.Sensing that the disaster was approaching, Krakul, who rushed back to the tent to ask for blessings, could do whatever he wanted

Since you seem to know it all, let's see what good you've done.You made a huge mistake in assuming what happened to Harris, causing pain to his family and friends.Now you are using your small report to belittle Jiang Bu's personality. What I read is that your own ego is frantically struggling to make sense of events.No matter how much analysis, criticism, judgment or assumptions you make, you will not get the peace and peace of mind you are looking for.There is no answer. No one is wrong, and no one can be blamed.Everyone did their best in a certain situation at a certain time.

Nobody intends to hurt anyone else.No one wants to die. I received this letter as soon as I heard that the list of the dead had become longer and that Jiang Bu had also died in a mountain disaster, so it was particularly painful to read.After the August monsoon rain retreated from the Himalayas, Jiang Bu returned to Mount Everest to take a Japanese client up the mountain along the South Col and Southeast Ridge route.On September 25th, they went up from No. 3 Battalion to No. 4 Battalion, intending to attack the summit, but unfortunately the slab collapsed, hitting Jiang Bu, another Sherpa and a Frenchman who was just below the tip of the slope in Geneva. He was swept off the wall of Luozi Mountain and lost his life.Jiang Bu left behind his young wife and two-month-old baby.

There is other bad news.Pokliffe reached the summit of Lhotse alone on May 17 after descending from Everest and resting at base camp for two days.He told me: I'm tired, but I hit the summit for Fisher.In order to fulfill his ambition of climbing the world's fourteen 8,000-meter peaks, he went to Tibet in September to climb Cho Oyu and the 8,013-meter Shishapangma.However, when he returned to Kazakhstan to visit relatives in mid-November, the bus he was on had a serious car accident.The driver died, suffering severe head injuries and one eye so badly damaged that it may never recover. 1

Note 1: Pokliffe was killed in an avalanche while climbing Annapurna Peak in December 1997.Editor's note. On October 14, 1996, the following text appeared on the computer network, from the Everest Forum in South Africa: I am a Sherpa orphan.My father died on the Khumbu Glacier while carrying supplies for an expeditionary force in the late 1960s.In 1970, my mother was carrying loads for another expeditionary force. She was overweight and died of heart failure in the village of Frizzi.Three of my siblings died of different causes and my sister and I were sent to foster families in Europe and the US.

I never went back to my hometown, I feel cursed there.My ancestors escaped persecution in the lowlands and arrived in the Solo/Khumbu region.They found refuge in the shadow of Sagarmatha.The gods expect them to protect the temple of the goddess from outsiders in return. But my people do the opposite.They helped outsiders find their way into the temple, offending every part of her, standing on top of her, shouting triumph, polluting her chest.Some of them had to sacrifice their lives, some escaped with a narrow escape, or sacrificed other lives instead So I believe that even the Sherpa people were responsible for the tragedy that happened on Sagarmatha Peak in 1996.I don't regret not returning home, because I know that people in this area are doomed, and so are the arrogant foreign billionaires who think they can conquer the world.Remember the Titanic.Even unsinkable ships are sunk, and stupid mortals like Withers, Sandy, Fisher, Jiang Bu, Nogay, Messner, and Bennington are nothing in the face of the Virgin.So I swore never to return home, not to be an accomplice to the sacrilege.

Everest seems to have ruined many lives.The relationship between people has disintegrated.The wife of one of the victims was hospitalized with depression.The last time I spoke to a teammate, his life was a mess.He said the stress of coping with the aftermath of the expedition threatened to destroy his marriage.He said he was unable to concentrate on his work and was verbally abused and insulted by many strangers. Sandy returns to Manhattan to find that the public outrage over the Everest incident is directed at her, using her as a lightning rod. The August 1996 issue of Vanity Fair published an embarrassing article about her.A gossip TV show called "Copyright" sent a camera crew to ambush her apartment.The writer Berkeley made a joke of her mountain misery, and it was featured on the tail page of The New Yorker.By the fall, things had become so serious that she told a friend in tears that her son was being ridiculed and excluded by his classmates at an expensive private school.The collective outrage over what happened on Everest was terrifyingly strong, and it was directed at her in such a way that she didn't expect it and was nearly overwhelmed. As for Beideman, although he led five clients down the mountain and saved their lives, he failed to prevent the death of a client who was not on his team and should not have been in his charge. This incident has been haunting him forever. Lingering. After Beidleman and I both readjusted to our hometown, I chatted with him.He recalled what it was like to be huddled with a party in a terrible storm on the South Col, desperately trying to keep everyone alive.He narrates: As long as the sky cleared a little and I could roughly guess the direction of the camp, I would yell and urge everyone to move forward, as if to say, hey, the snowstorm will stop soon, let's go!But some people obviously don't have the energy to walk, and they can't even stand up. Everyone is crying.I heard someone yelling don't let me die here, obviously this is the time.I managed to help Yasuko stand up.She grabbed my arm, but she was too weak to straighten up above the knee.I took a step forward and pulled her to take a step or two, then she let go of her hand and fell down.I had to keep going.Someone had to go to the tent and call for help, or everyone would die. Bedman paused for a moment.When he spoke again, his voice was hoarse, but I couldn't help but think of Yasuko.She is so petite.I can still feel her fingers slide over my bicep and let go.I didn't even look back. 【Description by the author】 My article in Outside magazine outraged several of the people I mentioned and broke the hearts of several friends and family members of the Everest victims.I'm really sorry.I have no intention of hurting anyone.The magazine article (and this book even more) was all about telling what happened on the mountain as accurately and honestly as possible, and with care and humility.I strongly believe that this story has to be told.It seems that not everyone feels the same, and my apologies to those who were hurt by my words. □□□ postscript In November 1997, a book called "The Climb" (The Climb) came out. (G. Weston DeWalt) buried in one piece.It was very interesting to me to be able to see the disaster of 1996 from Porkleaf's point of view.Some chapters of that book have a very strong narrative force, which deeply moved me.Because Pokliffe strongly disagrees with his image in "The Death of Mount Everest", "Climbing" defends Pokliffe's actions on Mount Everest at a considerable length, challenging the correctness of the report of "Death at Mount Everest", It even questioned my professional ethics as a reporter. DeWalt reviewed the relevant literature, completed The Climb, and considered himself a spokesman for Bocliffe.He spared no effort to slander "The Death of Mount Everest". In interviews with newspapers and radio media, as well as speeches on the Internet, and even letters to the families of the victims, he kept expressing his opinions on my work and myself.In this debate, DeWalt also presented an article in the July and August 1998 issue of "Columbia Journalism Review" Why Are Books So Often Wrong? >, by Missouri-based journalism instructor Steve Weinberg.The article questioned the veracity of three best-selling books, one of which was The Death of Mount Everest.DeWalt loved the article and often quotes on it. However, when this article was published, Weinberg admitted to me embarrassedly that all his criticisms of "Death on Mount Everest" were actually derived from DeWalt's book.In other words, Weinberg merely recounted DeWalt's statement without checking whether the various criticisms were correct.After the article was published, Weinberg published the following clarification in the Columbia Journalism Review: My article does not conflate Krakul's work with other critical bestsellers.Although a small portion of the book has been challenged, none of its critics has confirmed that the book misrepresents the facts. I included The Death of Everest not in order to criticize its content but to question the publication practices of the book.When book A was published, book B raised doubts, but the author, editor and publisher of book A did not respond, which would confuse readers. After seeing this statement, I asked Weinberg to elaborate.He explained that since the first paperback edition of The Death of Everest did not disprove The Climb's claims (the former came out five months after the latter), he mistook me for admitting DeWalt's allegations were true.Weinberg also makes a rather convincing claim: that once the integrity of the author is questioned, it is the duty of the author to refute it promptly, lest the reader be misled.Right after hearing what Weinberg had to say, I began to reconsider whether I should, as in the past, refuse to engage in endless public debate. As soon as "The Climbing" came out, I thought twice, and finally decided not to refute DeWalt's allegations in public. Instead, I sent a series of letters to DeWalt and his editor at St. Martin's (St. Martin's). , listing a large number of errors in the book.A spokesman for the publishing house said it would be corrected in subsequent editions. However, when St. Martin's published the paperback in July 1998, I found that most of the errors I had pointed out seven months earlier had not been corrected.DeWalt and the publishing house have been so careless in checking the content, which worries me very much. Coincidentally, a few days after Weinberg pointed out to me that journalists have a duty to defend their work, I read the new edition of The Climb and its old mistakes.These things made me decide not to keep my mouth shut, and stand up to defend the truth and fairness of "The Death of Mount Everest".Unfortunately, the only way to do that is to point out The Climb's mistakes.In the summer of 1998, in a conversation with the online magazine Salon, I broke my original silence for the first time, and in the appendix of the graphic edition of "The Death of Everest" launched in November 1998 Refute DeWalt's allegations.In January of the following year, St. Martin's Publishing House also launched an expanded edition of "The Climb", which included a new article criticizing my report as unreliable.DeWalt's lengthy essay prompted me to write the following epilogue. □□□ When a storm hit Everest on May 10, 1996, only three of the six professional guides trapped survived.They are Pokliffe, Glenn and Beidleman.Any serious journalist who wanted to cover this intricate tragedy would interview all three in person (as I did on The Death of Everest).After all, the decisions any guide makes will profoundly affect the outcome of this disaster.DeWalt interviewed Porkleaf, but inexplicably ignored the other two guides. Diwalt also did not contact Fisher's mountaineering Xuebatou Jiangbu, which is also puzzling.In this mountain disaster, Jiang Bu's role was very important and extremely controversial.He was the one who tied the short rope for Sandy, and was also the one who accompanied Fisher, the captain of the Mountain Idiot Team, when he fell to the ground at the top of the mountain, listening to Fisher's last words before his death.He was also the last person to see Hall, Harris and Hansen with his own eyes.However, although Jiang Bu visited Seattle in the summer of 1996, DeWalt could easily reach him by phone, but did not do so. In September 1996, Jiang Bu unfortunately died in another avalanche on Mount Everest.Afterwards, Di Huat insisted that he had always wanted to interview Jiang Bu, but before he had time to meet him, he had already passed away.It's a convenient remark, and it may be true, but it doesn't explain why he didn't interview other Sherpas who also played a role in the disaster.In addition, this does not explain why he did not interview the other three members of the mountaineering team, as well as several climbers who played a key role in the tragedy and rescue operations.Maybe it's just a coincidence, but most of the people DeWalt didn't interview had a lot to do with what Bocliffe did on Everest. 1 Note 1: Among the various harsh criticisms of Pokliffe, some voices came from several Sherpas, who all played important roles in the Everest disaster.I never mentioned it in publications, and I do it now because DeWalt mentioned it in the 1999 edition of The Climb. 1︱2: He mentioned in the new edition of "Climbing" that I wrote to the well-known mountaineer Galen Rowell in 1998, pointing out that many Sherpas blamed Pokri for Mount Everest. husband.He went on to claim that when Lowell traveled to Everest Base Camp in 1998, he found that no Sherpas blamed Pokreef.This statement was unheard of for them. 1︱3: However, Lowell himself never talked to Jiang Bu or Dorji (the Sherpa guide in the Holden mountaineering team).When Jiang Bu and Dorji met me on different occasions, they both pointed out in very strong terms that they (and most of the Sherpas on their team) really believed that Pokliffe was responsible for the mountain disaster.The opinions of the two can be found in relevant written records, video interviews and correspondence. 1︱4: However, DeWalt ignored such an important detail, which made the whole thing a verbal dispute.He never mentioned two other very important sentences in my letter to Lowell: First, please let me state that I think the Sherpas are very wrong to blame Pokliffe, therefore, I did not criticize myself. Their views are mentioned in the book.Such accusations are unfair and prone to resentment.I really don't understand.Why does DeWalt bring up this matter in his own work, without pointing out that I have already talked about it in the book.author note DeWalt also claimed that he tried to interview the two aforementioned important figures, but both were rejected.In Cliff's case, DeWalt did not lie.However, he did not mention that he did not invite Cliff to interview until after the publication of "Climbing".When Cliff received the interview invitation from DeWalt, he had already seen the book "Climbing" in a local bookstore, and he immediately replied: I find it a bit puzzling that you contacted me at this time.Obviously, you have your own goals to pursue, but in my opinion, that has nothing to do with the pursuit of truth, facts, understanding the whole incident or reconciliation. Whatever the cause of DeWalt's flawed reporting, the result is a rather sloppy transcript.Perhaps, this is because DeWalt knows nothing about mountaineering and has never visited the mountains of Nepal.In fact, the amateur filmmaker only met Porkleaf shortly after the Everest disaster.In short, Beidleman was very disappointed with The Climb, so he wrote to DeWalt in December 1997, writing: I don't think the report in The Climb is reliable, either you or your assistant, Never confirmed a single detail with me. Thanks to DeWalt's sloppy research, "The Climb" is riddled with mistakes.One example here is briefly mentioned, Harris's ice ax (the location of the ice ax is a key clue to the mystery of Harris' death).DeWalt pointed out where the ice ax appeared, but in fact, the ice ax was not there.This is one of many mistakes I pointed out to DeWalt and the book's editorial team when The Climb came out in November 1997, but they still appear in the paperback edition seven months later. These errors were not corrected.What is even more surprising is that the paperback edition of the book was substantially revised in July 1999, and these errors remain unchanged despite DeWalt's assurances that he made Errata 2.For those of us whose lives have been changed by the disaster and who are still trying to make sense of everything on the mountain, his nonchalance is irritating.For the Harris family, exactly where his ice ax fell is definitely not a trivial matter. Note 2: For this mistake, DeWalt wrote in the 1999 edition: In order to correct an unintentional mistake, all paperback editions of "Climbing" have deleted a sentence.The false caption was indeed removed, but DeWalt and the publisher never bothered to correct the errors in the 228-page text of the 1999 Climb.author note Sadly, some of The Climb's mistakes seem to be not mere sloppiness, but deliberate distortions designed to disparage my reporting on Death on Mount Everest.For example, DeWalt claimed in The Climb that my Outside article did not verify significant details.However, he knew very well that John Alderman, the editor of Outside magazine, had met with Pokliffe at the magazine's office before the magazine went to press, just to make sure that my entire report was correct.In addition to this, I myself met with Pokliffe many times over a period of two months in order to clarify the facts as best I could. The Bocliffe/DeWalt version of the Everest disaster is indeed different from what I believe to be the real version.However, Outside magazine published the version that I and the magazine editor believed, not Pokliffe's.During several of my meetings with Porkleaf, I found that his descriptions of certain major events were often back and forth, which made me question whether his memory was really reliable.In addition, several parties have also overturned Pokliffe's version of certain events, including Cruise, Cliffe, Jiang Bu, Adams, and Beidleman (among these people, DeWalt only interviewed Adams).In short, I found Porkleaf's recollection unreliable. Whether in The Climbing or elsewhere, DeWalt believed that my purpose in writing The Death on Mount Everest was to destroy Porcliffe's reputation.In support of this vile claim, DeWalt makes two charges.First, there is one thing I didn't mention: Rumor has it that Fisher had talked to Pokliffe at Hillary's Step and agreed to let him descend earlier than the rest of the climbers.Second, I also refuse to admit that Fisher has a secret plan in his mind to let Pokliffe go down the mountain earlier than other members. Regarding the first allegation, that is, the conversation between Fisher and Pokliffe on Hillary's Steps, what I found out is: Pokliffe, Adams, and Harris were waiting with me on the terrace. At this time, Fisher, who looked visibly unwell, finally arrived, ready to climb Everest.Fisher chatted first with Adams, then with Pokrief, and the conversation was even briefer.According to Adams' recollection, Pokliffe told Fisher at the time: I will accompany Adams down.In this way, this sentence is the entire content of the conversation between the two.Afterwards, Fisher chatted with me for a while, then turned around and continued to attack the summit with arduous steps.However, Pokliffe insisted that after Harris, Adams and I left the scene, Fisher talked to him again and agreed to let him go down the mountain before the rest of the climbing team, so that he could prepare hot tea and provide support below. . In the weeks and months following the Everest tragedy, Adams (Porcliffe's friend and ardent defender) told me, Bedleman, and others that he doubted it really mattered. the second conversation.Since then, his attitude has changed a bit. His latest position is that he is not sure whether Pokliffe had a second conversation with Fisher because he was not there at the time. Obviously, I wasn't there either.So why do I question Porkleaf's recollection of the event?Part of the reason is that when Pokliffe first told me that he had had a long chat with Fisher and that Fisher supported him getting down the mountain as soon as possible, he made it clear that this happened when Fisher had just arrived at Hillary's steps. At the time, however, Adams, Harris and I were all there.Then, when I suggested that Adams recalled the incident differently, Pokliffe revised it so that after the three of us had left, he spoke to Fisher again. But the main reason I question whether the so-called second conversation actually took place is what I've witnessed since I started to climb down the Hillary ranks.I looked up one last time before the descent, to check that the anchors were secure, when I noticed that Fisher had moved to a tighter area higher up, while Harris, Adams, Porkleaf and I were all on the ropes .So, can I be sure that Pokliffe didn't climb up to talk to Fisher again?cannot.However, Bocliffe was as cold and tired as I and the rest of my companions, and was extremely anxious about going down the mountain.As I rappel down the edge of the Hillary Step, the narrow ridge above me by Poklef quivered impatiently.So I find it hard to believe that anything else would prompt him to crawl back and talk to Fisher again. So I do have reason to question whether Pokliffe actually talked to Fisher twice.But, in retrospect, it would have been fairer for me to have reported Pokrief's recollection of the second conversation and explained why I questioned it, rather than not mentioning it at all in The Death of Everest.I am very sorry for the anger and harsh words caused by such an omission. However, I also wondered why DeWalt was so annoyed by my decision not to write the second dialogue, since in The Climbing he too did not feel the need to write Fisher and Pokli. The first conversation in the book, in which Pokliffe told Fisher that he was going to accompany Adams, was uncontroversial.Although Adams thought that given my position at the time, I might not be able to hear the content of the conversation between the two of them clearly, but he never denied that these few words were all that Pokliffe said at the time.In The Climb, however, DeWalt does not mention this dialogue at all.More importantly, he should have mentioned that Borkleaf was not by Adams' side during the descent (a promise he had made to Fisher), nearly costing the latter his life. Glenn described in his work "Sheer Will" that when he, Yasuko, and I met on a terrace at an altitude of 8,400 meters, Adams stumbled and fell from our left hand side.From where I was, he seemed to have lost his hands and was momentarily out of control.Later, Glenn met Adams again at a lower altitude. At this time, Adams had stopped sliding. He: Trying to get up looked like a drunk who repeatedly fell into snowdrifts, approached dangerously the other side of the mountain, and nearly fell into Tibet once.I got out of my way, approached him, and had a few words with him.I saw his oxygen mask had slid down and hung under his chin.The chin and eyebrows were caked with ice.Half of his body was buried in the snow, but he kept giggling. This is the effect of lack of oxygen on the brain.I told him to pull the oxygen mask over his mouth.I used the tone of a father to coax a child to coax him over, and let him go as close as possible to the ridge. Did I see two climbers in red clothes over there?follow them.As I spoke, I pointed at Qiang and Yasuko. Although they were in the valley below, their figures were still very clear.He stumbled down the ridge.I doubt he cares whether he lives or dies.Considering that he seemed to have lost his judgment, I decided to follow him. Adams lost his way because Pokliff went down the mountain first. If Glenn hadn't happened to meet him, then he would probably have walked to the other side of the mountain wall and died because of it.However, in "The Climb", DeWalt does not mention this matter at all. In "The Climb," the most exasperating misreporting is Fisher's conversation with Jane.The latter, Fisher's publicist and close friend, also accompanied him to Everest base camp.DeWalt cites Jane's recollection of this conversation, in order to convince the reader that Fisher had planned for Pokliffe to go down the mountain one step ahead of the team after reaching the summit.He adapted Jane's words to form the evidence for the second main charge, which is that I did not mention in "Death on Everest" that Fisher's plan was a very bad character assassination, and I don't believe he can make it. legitimate defense. In fact, the reason I didn't mention this so-called plan is because I found strong evidence that there was no plan at all.Beidleman (who is known to be a very humble, honest guy, and highly regarded for his climbing prowess and experience) told me that if Fisher really had this plan, he wouldn't be crazy on May 10th. The team didn't know when they set out to attack the summit.Besides, he was sure that Pokliffe was unaware of the plan.More than half a year after the mountain tragedy, Pokliffe repeatedly explained why he went down the mountain earlier than his clients in interviews on TV, the Internet, magazines and news.But not once did he point out that he was just following a plan Fisher had laid out in advance.In contrast, in the summer of 1996, Pokliffe stated in a videotaped interview with ABC News that the Mountain Morons had no plans to climb the mountain at all.He explained to reporter Forrest Sawyer that until he reached the summit, he didn't know what to do or what my plan was. It had to be decided according to the situation, because we didn't have a plan at all. Obviously, Saul didn't understand what Pokliffe meant, and he asked after a while: So your plan is that when you pass everyone, you have to wait for all the team members to arrive at the summit of Mount Everest? Porkleaf smiled, repeating that they hadn't pre-determined anything.That's not a plan, we don't have a plan, but I need to see the situation and make my plan. It was too late, but in the 1999 edition of The Climb, DeWalt admits that Bocliffe never said he knew of Fisher's plan before summit day.DeWalt further admitted that the only evidence to support the pre-planned theory is the transcript of the conversation between Jane and Fisher.However, Jane had emphasized to DeWalt and me before both books were published that it would be a mistake to think that Fisher's passage represented any semblance of an actual project in his mind.In 1997, before the publication of "The Climb", Jane sent a letter to DeWalt and St. Martin's Press, blaming DeWalt for adapting her account and distorting her meaning.She pointed out that DeWalt changed her wording to make it look like the entire conversation took place just days before the summit.But in fact, this conversation took place three weeks before the summit.The difference between the two is a thousand miles away. In a letter to DeWalt and her editor, Jane pointed out that The Climb revised her statement to read: Absolutely wrong!When readers think about the many causes of the mountain disaster, such a distortion will mislead them to draw wrong conclusions, and they may mistakenly think that Pokliffe went down the mountain earlier than the team because of a clear plan.If my words are published like this, it will become a distorted interpretation and calculation of the mountain disaster, and the only purpose is to blame other members in order to excuse Pokliffe. When discussing this mountain disaster, there are too many People have quoted me for this statement.Fisher never mentioned the plan again.But he is actually a person who likes to communicate very much. If this is his plan, he will bring it up to discuss with Beidleman and Pokliffe (Beidelman told me that Fisher never mentioned this plan).Therefore, I feel that quoting my statement in this way is seriously misleading. When my argument with DeWalt had become so intense that it became a war, he was still desperate to try to explain the above-mentioned clear and unambiguous letter in his own way, mainly by constructing an elaborate labyrinth of language and using intricate A grammatical analysis of Jen's argument.However, Jen still stood her ground.She said: "It's ridiculous for DeWalt to say he knows what I'm thinking better than I do.In the letter I sent him in October 1997, I made my feelings clear, even though he tried to distort my words. When Jane refused to back down and insisted that her letter was correct, DeWalt attacked her as unreliable in "The Climb" in 1999. , DeWalt's only basis is his interpretation of Jane's words (despite so much evidence that he is wrong).If DeWalt doesn't think Jane is trustworthy, I don't know what else he has left. Fisher attached great importance to Pokliffe's extraordinary strength, courage and experience, and no one questioned this matter. At the same time, everyone also admitted that Fisher's confidence in Pokliffe was rewarded in the end.Pokliffe saved two dying people.However, DeWalt insisted that Fisher had already decided to let Pokliff leave the team and go down the mountain first, which absolutely deviated from the facts.And he attacked me for not wanting to write this project because I wanted to discredit Pokrief's character, which is even more outrageous. Whether Fisher agreed to let Porkleaf go down the mountain before the client was of course very important in hindsight.However, the controversy generated by this off-topic question was too intense, out of proportion, and even overshadowed the larger issue: whether it is appropriate for Everest guides to not inhale oxygen cylinders.No one, including DeWalt, discussed the fact that this question obscured the fact that Pokliffe decided not to use oxygen tanks on the day of the summit.And, after summiting, he descended hours before the rest of the team, a behavior that violated the standard practice of professional mountain guides around the world.People focus on whether Pokliffe got Fisher's consent, but ignore that when he decided not to carry oxygen tanks in the early stage of the expedition, he may have foreshadowed that he would decide to throw the team members on the ridge in the future.下山。波克里夫一旦決定要無氧攀登，就斷絕了自己的後路。由於他身上沒有氧氣筒，唯一的選擇就是在攻頂後盡快下山，無論費雪是否同意。 問題不是出在疲勞，而是寒冷。筒裝氧氣的重要性在於避免疲勞、高山症以及極端海拔引發的神智不清，這一點大家都知道，但較少人知道，氧氣可以避免高海拔低溫對人體的破壞。這點就算沒有比較重要，至少影響也同樣重大。 五月十日，當波克里夫率先從南峰下山時，已經待在海拔八千七百五十公尺高的地方長達三、四個小時，並且沒有使用氧氣筒。在這段期間，他都待在零下的寒風中，體溫越來越低任何人在這樣的情況下都會如此。波克里夫在接受《男人誌》採訪時表示： 我待在（聖母峰頂）大約一小時。那裡很冷，你自然會流失體力。當時，我的處境就是如果繼續站在酷寒中等，情況會很不妙。在那種海拔中，如果你不活動，你就會因為寒冷而流失體力，之後就什麼事情都做不了。 波克里夫在雜誌出版前確認了這段話正確無誤。寒風不停吹來，他有凍傷與失溫之虞，因此被迫盡快下山，但那不是因為疲倦，而是因為太冷。 在高海拔地區，登山者若不使用氧氣筒，寒風會變得更加致命。一九九六年山難過後十三天，維斯特斯出發攻頂時，我們就從他的遭遇體認到這一點。五月二十三日，維斯和IMAX隊一起攻頂，他提前二、三十分鐘左右離開四號營，並未與隊友同行。他之所以這麼做，是因為他跟波克里夫一樣，都沒有帶氧氣筒（維斯特斯是當年IMAX攝影隊的主演，而非嚮導），大家認為他早點出發，才不會被隊友趕上其他人全都用了氧氣筒。 但是，維斯特斯實在太強壯了，儘管他必須在非常深厚的積雪中開路，還是沒有人可以跟上他的腳步。不過，他知道布里薛斯必須拍到他攻頂的鏡頭，所以他常常得停下腳步，盡可能讓攝影隊跟上。可是，他只要一停下，就會馬上感受到低溫的影響，即使五月二十三日的溫度已經比五月十日還要高。由於他相當擔心凍傷或更糟的情況，所以不時得逼自己在其他隊員趕上拍攝之前擡起腳繼續攻頂。布里薛斯解釋道：維斯特斯的體能至少不輸波克里夫，但是，少了補充氧氣之助，他只要一停下，體溫就會下降。正因如此，布里薛斯最後沒有成功拍攝到維斯特斯離開四號營之後的鏡頭（維斯特斯在電影中的攻頂日片段，是在日後補拍的）。我的重點是，波克里夫也是基於同樣的理由必須不斷前進，兩人都是了防止凍傷。若不吸補充氧氣，任何人都無法在聖母峰的酷寒高處走走停停，全世界最強壯的登山家也辦不到。 布里薛斯堅持道：很抱歉，但波克里夫選擇無氧攀登實在毫無道理。無論你有多強壯，爬聖母峰不吸氧就是讓自己無後路可退。不吸氧就無法幫助客戶，有失嚮導立場。波克里夫說費雪派他下山準備熱茶，那只是掩飾之詞。雪巴人早就在南坳等著煮茶。聖母峰嚮導應該只出現在一個地方，那就是客戶身邊或身後，並且吸筒裝氧氣，隨時準備好提供協助。 全世界最受推崇的高山嚮導和高山症醫學／生理學權威都有堅定的共識：任何嚮導在聖母峰不吸筒裝氧氣帶隊，都是極大的冒險。狄華特在收集寫作資料時，曾要求助理致電全球知名的高山症權威哈克特（Peter Hackett），想徵詢這位醫師的專業意見。哈克特醫師曾經在一九八一年隨著醫療探險隊登上聖母峰，他也毫不猶豫地表示，在他看來，即使強壯如波克里夫，擔任聖母峰嚮導卻不使用氧氣筒不僅危險，也很魯莽。很顯然，狄華特得知哈克特醫師的意見之後，就決定不在《攀登》中提到這件事情，並且繼續堅稱波克里夫在一九九六年不使用氧氣筒反而讓他更有能力面對問題。 波克里夫與狄華特在無數打書的場合中提到梅斯納這位當代登山造詣最高、最受敬重的登山家也贊同波克里夫在聖母峰上的行動，包括不使用氧氣筒。當我在一九九七年十一月採訪波克里夫時，他當面告訴我：梅斯納說我做了正確的事情。在《攀登》中，狄華特提到我如何批評波克里夫在聖母峰的行為時，引用了波克里夫的話如下： 少數人的聲音壟斷了美國媒體的報導，我覺得受到極為嚴重的污蔑。如果沒有梅斯納這些歐洲朋友的支持，美國媒體對於我如何從事專業工作的看法，會深深打擊我。 不幸的是，波克里夫與狄華特雖然聲稱梅斯納支持他，但這個說法正如《攀登》的其他說詞，並不是真的。 一九九八年二月，我在紐約採訪了梅斯納，他用直截了當的口吻對著錄音機表示，他認為波克里夫拋下客戶先下山是錯的。梅斯納甚至推測，如果波克里夫當時待在客戶身旁，這場悲劇也許會出現不同結果。梅斯納表示：聖母峰嚮導不應該不吸筒裝氧氣。除此之外，他也表示，如果波克里夫以為他的行為得到自己的支持，也是錯的。 除了梅斯納之外，狄華特也曲解其他登山名家的意見，以此詆毀我。他也引用了布里薛斯的說法。布里薛斯在一九九七年《不正派波士頓人》（The Improper Bostonian）的專訪中批評我對珊蒂的描述。珊蒂是布里薛斯的好友，我敬重他對朋友的忠誠。除此之外，布里薛斯素以直言不諱聞名，有時甚至坦率得不近人情，我也相當欣賞他這一點，即使他批評的對象是我。但事實是，布里薛斯對狄華特與《攀登》的評價也毫不留情。以下這段文字，節錄自一九九八年七月布里薛斯主動寄給我的電子郵件： 我認為，狄華特的報導毫不可靠，與事實相差十萬八千里。我確定你也會贊同，如果你沒有實際待在那裡，就不可能準確描述高海拔，登山經驗再豐富都無濟於事。狄華特提到了無氧攀登，但大多數經驗豐富的高海拔登山家都不會同意他的結論。 所有證據也都不支持他的說法，用邏輯想一想也知道（氧氣=燃料=能量=溫度=體能等）。據說波克里夫自行下山是為了提供後援，但他從來沒有出去找自己的客戶。這些人就散落在南坳，瀕臨凍死。他們只能自己站起來，搖搖晃晃走回營地，同時送回生死攸關的救援資訊。此時的波克里夫還坐在自己的帳棚裡，無法幫助任何人，直到有人告訴他失蹤者的位置。 真的夠了！我很遺憾波克里夫不在這裡和我們談這件事。我仍然相信，波克里夫之所以先下山，就是因為他又累又冷，沒有辦法待在山頂（幾乎是動也不動地）等客戶。最後，為什麼大家還在吵你的書？我們該憤怒的不是這些，你得拿出勇氣，把真正的問題全寫出來。 那年五月，聖母峰上有許多人都犯了錯。就像我在本書中所提，我本人的行動也可能導致兩名隊友不幸罹難。我從不質疑波克里夫在攻頂日的行為都本著善意，我非常確定他用心良善。但是，讓我惱火的是他拒絕承認自己或許做了一件非常糟糕的決定。 狄華特寫道，我在《聖母峰之死》一書中苛責波克里夫，是為了轉移焦點，讓人忽略一九九六年聖母峰悲劇發生之後的數個星期間隱隱約約浮現的問題：我以《戶外》雜誌作者的身分出現在冒險顧問隊，是否造成了這場悲劇？事實上，我一直為自己和珊蒂的身分確實可能直接推動了這場悲劇而良心不安。但是，我並沒有像狄華特的批評那樣，試圖逃避這個問題。我在無數訪談中都自己提出這一點來討論，更不用提這本書了。我建議狄華特可以閱讀本書的一百五十五、五十六頁，我在那裡用了很長的段落探討這個問題。無論有多痛苦，我從不迴避自己在聖母峰上所犯的錯。我只希望其他人也能用同樣坦率的態度回顧這場災難。 儘管我批評了波克里夫的某些行為，我也不斷強調他在五月十一日山難發生時的種種英雄行動。毫無疑問，波克里夫冒著生命危險救了珊蒂與夏洛蒂的生命。我在許多場合都再三重複這件事。我非常敬佩波克里夫獨自走入暴風雪中，把迷路的登山者找回來，而我們其他人卻在帳棚裡一籌莫展。儘管如此，他在當天稍早以及遠征過程中所做的一些決定，卻還是帶來了麻煩，任何決定要寫出誠實、完整山難報導的記者，絕對不可能忽略這些事情。 正如之後的發展，我在聖母峰的所見所聞令人不安，即使當時沒有發生山難，也不會改變這個事實。《戶外》雜誌把我送到尼泊爾，希望我報導商業遠征隊如何攀登世界最高峰。我的工作就是觀察隊員、嚮導的特質，並且讓閱讀大眾能夠得到敏銳、第一手的觀察，了解一支由嚮導帶領的遠征隊際實際上是如何運作。除此之外，我也深信對於其他生還者、對於悲傷的罹難者家屬、對於歷史紀錄，以及那些沒有辦法回家的伙伴，我還有一個使命，那就是完整報導一九九六年聖母峰上究竟發生了什麼事情，並且不能受到外界對這份報導的觀感所影響。而我也這麼做了，這一切都有賴我以新聞記者及登山家的經驗，提出盡可能正確、誠實的解釋。 關於一九九六年聖母峰山難的爭議，在一九九七年的聖誕節出現了令人心驚的轉折。就在《攀登》出版六個星期之後，波克里夫在世界第十高峰安娜普娜峰的雪崩中罹難了。全界都為他的逝世哀悼。他辭世時不過三十九歲，既是卓越運動員，又有無比的勇氣。根據各方說法，他是相當出色也非常複雜的男人。 他出身蘇聯境內烏拉山脈南部的貧困礦村。根據英國記者吉爾曼（Peter Gillman）在倫敦媒體《週日郵報》（Mail on Sunday）的報導，當他還是孩子時，他的父親： 靠著製鞋與修理手錶勉強維生。他們一家共有五個小孩，全都住在一個破爛的木板屋中，家裡甚至沒有水龍頭。波克里夫一直想要逃離。山，給了他機會。 波克里夫九歲就學會登山，並以天賦異稟很快嶄露頭角。十六歲時，他得到夢寐以求的機會，前往哈薩克天山山脈參加蘇聯登山訓練營。二十四歲時，他入選蘇聯國家菁英登山隊，財務津貼、顯赫名聲以及各種有形無形的好處，也隨之而來。一九八九年，他跟著蘇聯遠征隊登上世界第三高峰干城章嘉峰。他一回到哈薩克阿拉木圖，就獲蘇聯總統戈巴契夫頒發蘇聯運動大師榮銜。 之後，世界秩序起了翻天覆地的變化，他的美好時光並未持續太久，正如吉爾曼所說： 蘇聯瓦解。兩年後，戈巴契夫辭職下臺，至於波克里夫，他才剛剛登上聖母峰，就發現自己的地位與特權都消失了。波克里夫告訴自己的美國籍女友林達（Linda Wylie）：什麼都沒有了。沒有錢！只能排隊領麵包。波克里夫下定決心不屈服。如果共產黨秩序瓦解了，他也必須適應這個由私人企業所主宰的新世界，而他手上的資產，就是自己的登山技巧與決心。 一九九七年年初，他在網路上發表一篇紀念文，文章中他的朋友法蘭3回憶道： （對波克里夫來說）那是非常艱辛的時期，光是要負擔食物都是一種奢侈。對於蘇聯登山家來說，唯一前往喜馬拉雅山脈的機會，就是在系統裡競爭，贏得那項特權。無論你的登山技藝夠不夠強，都不可能自由前往喜馬拉雅山脈。那是夢，在波克里夫成名之前，有一段時期他什麼都要努力爭取。但是他展現了我從來不曾在其他人身上看到的力量，堅決追求自己的夢。 注3：法蘭（Fran Distefano︱Arsentiev）住在科羅拉多州諾伍德鎮。她在丈夫、知名俄羅斯登山家阿森提夫（Serguei Arsentiev）的引介下認識波克里夫。一九九八年五月，她與阿森提夫一起從東北稜登上聖母峰，全程不使用補充氧氣，她也因此成為第一位無氧攻上聖母峰的美國女性。但是，在登頂時，這對賢伉儷已經在八千二百二十公尺的高處停留三晚，一直沒吸補充氧氣。兩人下山時也被迫在更高的地方停留第四晚，這一次，不但沒有補充氧氣，也沒有帳棚、睡袋，完全暴露在大自然中。不幸的是，兩人在抵達安全營地前就過世了。author note 為了兼顧登山與營生，波克里夫四海為家。他在喜馬拉雅山脈、阿拉斯加與哈薩克等地擔任登山嚮導，在美國登山用品店開課放投影片，偶而也做做一般工作。但是，他一直都在累積非凡的高海拔登山紀錄。 儘管他熱愛登山，也喜歡待在山上，但他卻從來不曾假裝自己樂於當嚮導。在《攀登》中，他就非常坦率的說： 但願我可以有機會用其他方式謀生。對我來說，要去尋找另一個賺錢方式來實現人生目標，為時已晚。將毫無經驗的男女帶入這個（危險的高海拔登山）世界之中，我實在難以苟同。 因此，即使經歷了一九九六年山難的駭人時刻與爭議，他仍不斷帶領新手邁向高峰。 一九九七年春天，就在聖母峰山難一年之後，他同意擔任印尼登山隊的嚮導，這支隊伍由軍官組成，立志要成為印尼第一批登上聖母峰的人，儘管他們沒有任何登山經驗，甚至不曾看過雪。波克里夫請了兩位俄羅斯登山高手來協助自己，即巴斯基洛夫（Vladimir Bashkirov）與維諾格羅茨（Evgeny Vinogradski），除此之外，他也僱用了雪巴人阿帕（Apa），阿帕已七度攀登聖母峰。不同於一九九六年，這次每個人都在攻頂時用了氧氣筒，包括波克里夫自己，儘管他曾經堅持，對他來說，不帶氧氣筒登山，可以避免氧氣用盡時身體突然無法適應高海拔，所以比較安全。除此之外，還有另外一件事情也值得注意，在一九九七年的攻頂日，波克里夫也緊緊陪著自己的印尼客戶。 一九九七年四月二十六日午夜一過，這支登山隊就從南坳出發。接近正午時分，帶頭阿帕抵達希拉瑞之階，發現了赫洛德4的屍體就懸掛在一條舊的固定繩上。阿帕、波克里夫與這支登山隊的其他成員一一越過這位死去的英國攝影師，費力而緩慢地攻向山頂。 注4：赫洛德的屍體倒掛在繩索上。一九九六年五月二十五號晚上，當他從希拉瑞之階垂降時，整個人應該翻了一圈，卻沒有辦法調正也許是因為他已經筋疲力盡，或是被什麼東西打昏了如何，波克里夫與印尼登山隊沒有動他的屍體。一個月後，也就是一九九七年的五月二十三日，PBS電視節目新知攝影隊出發拍攝攻頂，隊員艾森斯（Pete Athans）將赫洛德的屍體從繩索上解開。他切斷赫洛德身上的繩索之前，找到他的相機，裡面就有他拍下的最後一張照片：聖母峰頂。author note 下午三點半，Asmujiono Prajurit跟在波克里夫身後，成為第一個登頂的印尼人。他們只在上面停留了十分鐘，就開始下山。之後，他也強迫另外兩個印尼人回頭，雖然其中一人距離山頂只剩三十公尺。那一晚，這支登山隊只能趕到露臺，被迫在海拔八千四百多公尺高的地方露宿，熬過可怕的一晚。拜波克里夫卓越的領導力之賜，也要感謝當晚居然罕見地無風，所有人都在四月二十七號安全回到南坳。我們非常幸運，連波克里夫都這麼說。 回第四營的途中，波克里夫與維諾格羅茨停了一下，在海拔八千兩百九十公尺高的地方用石塊和雪埋葬了費雪。波克里夫在《攀登》中說，這最後一份敬意，獻給我心目中最優秀、最開朗的美國人。我經常想起他燦爛的笑容，還有樂觀的態度。我是非常難相處的人，但仍然希望能夠藉由活得多像他一點來緬懷他。一天後，波克里夫穿過南坳，抵達東壁邊緣。在這裡，他找到康子的遺體，盡他所能用石頭埋了她，並把她的隨身物品帶回給她的家人。 從聖母峰下來一個月後，波克里夫展開洛子峰與聖母峰的快速橫越計畫，這次他的隊友是年僅三十、技藝高超的義大利籍登山家摩洛（Simone Moro）。波克里夫與摩洛預計在五月二十六號出發攻洛子峰頂5，同一天，另一支俄羅斯登山隊（波克里夫的朋友，也就是先前協助他帶領印尼隊的巴斯基洛夫也在該隊中）也開始攀登洛子峰，但這十人都不使用氧氣筒。 注5：摩洛在一九九七年首次與波克里夫見面，兩人很快成為摯友。摩洛告訴我：我非常愛波克里夫，當然，那是朋友的愛。遇到他之後，我改變了自己的人生、計畫與夢想。或許只有他的母親跟女友對他的愛，才能超越我對他的愛。摩洛非常不認同我在本書中對波克里夫的描述。他解釋道，你不了解他實際上是怎樣的人。你是美國人，他是俄羅斯人。你是八千公尺高峰的新手，他卻是史上最好的八千公尺登山家（在八千公尺高峰這個領域，沒有其他人登頂超過二十一次）。你只是普通登山家，他卻是超凡的運動員，同時也是生存高手。你衣食無憂，他卻很懂什麼叫挨餓。就我看來，你就像那種讀過幾本醫學書就裝模作樣，想要教導世界知名、頂尖的外科醫師怎麼開刀的人。當你評斷波克里夫在一九九六年所做的任何決定時，一定要記住：他隊上沒有任何客戶死去。author 摩洛在下午一點抵達峰頂，二十五分鐘後波克里夫也抵達了，卻覺得身體不太舒服，在山頂只待了幾分鐘就決定下山。摩洛留在山頂，繼續待了大概四十分鐘後開始下山。下山時，他遇到了巴斯基洛夫，巴斯基洛夫也覺得不太舒服，但仍繼續往上爬。稍後，巴斯基洛夫與其他俄羅斯隊員全都登上峰頂。 就在最後一個俄羅斯人登頂後沒多久，摩洛與波克里夫回到帳棚睡覺。隔天清晨，摩洛在散步時打開了無線電，卻無意間聽到正在爬洛子峰的義大利朋友傳出訊息，驚恐地回報他們在山峰上發現一具身穿綠衣黃靴的屍體。摩洛說：那一刻，我想到那可能是巴斯基洛夫。他立刻叫醒波克里夫，波克里夫也連忙用無線電聯絡俄羅斯登山隊。對方回報說，前天晚上，巴斯基洛夫確實已在下山途中死於高山反應引發的病症。 儘管高山才剛剛奪走波克里夫又一個朋友的命，他攀爬世界高峰的熱情絲毫未退。一九九七年七月七號，就在巴斯基洛夫辭世後的六個星期，他決定一人攻上巴基斯坦的布洛德峰。而就在那之後的一星期，他也登上鄰近的加舒爾布魯木三號峰。儘管摩洛告訴他，他其實沒有必要完攻十四座八千公尺高峰，這件事對他並沒有特別意義。那時他已經登上其中十一座，只剩下南迦帕爾巴特峰、加舒爾布魯木一號峰與安娜普那一號峰。 同年夏天，波克里夫邀請梅斯納前往天山，一起進行休閒性質的登山。在天山期間，波克里夫也向這位義大利傳奇登山家求教，討論自己的登山大業。自一九八九年首次進入喜馬拉雅山脈以來，波克里夫已經締造了驚人的高海拔攀登紀錄。但是，除了其中兩次攀登，他走的幾乎都是傳統路線，技術難度不高，比較偏向登山旅遊。梅斯納指點他，如果想要躋身真正的世界級登山名家，就必須將目標轉向更陡峭、極度困難的處女路線。 波克里夫由衷接受他的建議。事實上，在詢問梅斯納之前，波克里夫與摩洛就已經決定要試著從一條相當險峻的路線攻上安娜普娜峰。這條路線位於龐大無比的南壁，迄今只有一支強大的英國登山隊曾經在一九七〇年完成。波克里夫和摩洛為了提高難度，決定在冬天攀登。這會是一場雄心勃勃且非常危險的行動，他們得在高海拔地區超乎想像的狂風與酷寒中進行極度困難的技術攀登。即使走最簡單的路線，海拔八〇六三的安娜普娜峰也是全世界數一數二的殺人峰：每有兩人成功攻頂，就有一人喪生。如果波克里夫與摩洛成功了，將可名列喜馬拉雅登山史上數一數二勇敢的攻頂壯舉。 一九九七年十一月下旬，《攀登》剛出版沒多久，波克里夫與摩洛前往尼泊爾，搭上直升機飛往安娜普娜峰基地營，隨行的還有哈薩克籍的電影攝影師索伯列夫（Dimitri Sobolev）。但是，當天狀況以初冬來說相當不尋常。暴風不停挾帶驚人雪量來襲，他們要走的路線也因此發生巨大雪崩。在遠征一個月後，兩人放棄原本的計畫，改走安娜普娜峰南壁東側邊緣的另一條路線。在這之前，已經有許多出色的登山家試過這條路線，但都沒有人成功。新路線的難度相當高，波克里夫等人必須先爬上一座極為可怕的山峰，才能夠攻上山頂，但這裡比較不需要提防雪崩。 波克里夫、摩洛與索伯列夫在海拔五一八一公尺高的地方，也就是新路線第一個陡峭處的下方，設立了一號營。他們在聖誕節的日出時分出發，希望能夠從寬闊的小山谷一路沿著高出營地八百多公尺的山脊架好固定繩。摩洛在最前面，到了中午已經沿著山脊爬升了六十公尺。中午十二點二十七分，他停下腳步，想從背包拿出東西，卻聽見砰的一聲巨響。他擡頭一看，上面有一陣巨大雪塊正直接朝他衝來。在冰雪形成的巨牆把他捲進去滾落山下之前，他設法大聲喊叫，希望警告波克里夫和索伯列夫，這兩人還在一百五十二公尺下方的小山慢慢往上爬。 摩洛一度試著抓住固定繩穩住自己，手掌跟指頭因此擦傷，留下深深的圓形傷口。他跟著急速墜下的冰塊下降了八百公尺左右，昏了過去。當這場雪崩終於在一號營上方的緩坡處停下時，摩洛很幸運地落在雪崩碎片上方。他一邊重拾意識，一邊瘋狂地尋找隊友，但一點蛛絲馬跡也找不到。隨後一個星期的空中、地面搜救也徒勞無功。波克里夫與索伯列夫應該已經離開人世。 波克里夫罹難的新聞震驚了幾大洲，許多人無法置信。他經常旅行，在全世界各地都有朋友。太多人為他的不幸而痛心，哀傷的程度一點都不亞於他的同居女友，新墨西哥州聖達非市的林達。 他的死讓我非常難受，理由很多很複雜。安娜普娜峰意外發生之後，一九九六年聖母峰山難的爭議也出現轉折。我開始思考自己為什麼會跟波克里夫走到這一步。我和他都非常固執、驕傲，不願在爭吵中退讓。我們各持己見，已經大大失去了分寸，在過程中貶損了彼此。如果我對自己夠誠實，就必須承認，我應該與波克里夫負起同等的責任。 那麼，我應該把波克里夫描寫成另一個樣子嗎？No, I don't think so.自從《聖母峰之死》與《攀登》出版以來，我還沒有得到任何資訊證明我寫錯了。一九九六年九月《戶外》雜誌登出那篇聖母峰山難的文章後不久，我和波克里夫給對方寫了幾封信，這些信件都貼到網路上，引起軒然大波。也許，我確實希望當時自己不那麼咄咄逼人。這些網路上的唇槍舌戰帶動了糟糕的氣氛，戰火在隨後幾個月越演越烈，加深了彼此的對立。 雖然我在《戶外》雜誌的那篇文章批評了波克里夫，但在本書中對他有不同的評價，並由衷讚揚他，儘管如此，這些批評仍傷害、激怒了他。於是，他與狄華特開始攻擊我的人格，甚至針對各種事實提出前所未聞的解釋。為了捍衛自己，我被迫公開某些傷人的資料。先前為了避免對波克里夫造成不必要的傷害，我一直隱瞞這些資料。對此，波克里夫、狄華特與出版社編輯的回應是更激烈的人身攻擊，之後的討論氣氛只有更加惡化。也許，就如狄華特在《攀登》裡所說的，針對一九九六年聖母峰上發生的事情進行一場公開、持續的辯論會是好事。當然，這也有助於他的書籍銷售還有我的，無庸置疑。但是，在這樣悲慟的氣氛中，我不確定我們能闡明多少應永遠記取的重要問題。 一九九七年十一月初的班夫山書展（Banff Mountain Book Festival），這場爭論達到高峰。那時波克里夫在一場傑出登山家論壇中擔任座談者，我則因為擔心這場活動可能淪為我跟波克里夫的戰場，拒絕了發言的邀請。但是，我犯了一個錯，我不該以觀眾的身分參加。輪到波克里夫發言時，他請林達（當天擔任他的翻譯）讀了一份預先擬好的聲明，宣稱我對他的描述大多是狗屁。結果我還是忍不住上鉤，在坐滿觀眾的講堂跟波克里夫互換一些非常不雅的字眼。 我立刻就後悔了。在論壇做完總結，群眾逐漸散去時，我衝到外面尋找波克里夫，發現他正跟林達一起穿過班夫中心的運動場。我告訴他，我認為我們兩人需要私下聊聊，解開誤會。一開始他有點猶豫，申明自己已經來不及出席下一場書展活動。但我仍然堅持，最後他也同意給我幾分鐘。在接下來的半小時內，我跟他還有林達都站在加拿大戶外的寒冷早晨中，坦誠但冷靜地談論彼此的歧議。 在某一刻，波克里夫突然把手放在我的肩膀上說：我不生你的氣，強，但你真的不了解。協商結束我們各自離開時，已經達成共識：雙方必須平息這場爭論的火氣。除此之外，我們也都同意兩人不需要這麼劍拔弩張、針鋒相對。我們同意對某些事情可以各持己見，特別是對帶隊時不吸筒裝氧氣的判斷，以及他與費雪在希拉瑞之階上的對話等。但是，我們也明白，在其他同等重要的事情上，彼此的觀點其實沒有任何不同。 儘管波克里夫的共同作者狄華特先生（他並未出席前文所提的座談會）還是興致勃勃，繼續搧風點火，但我置之不理，而是抱著期待，希望能夠化解與波克里夫的矛盾。也許我太過樂觀，但我認為我看到了這場紛擾的終點。然