I have just finished a review of Clint Willis' Boys of Everest and I'm nearly done with James Tabor's Forever on the Mountain, about a McKinley climbing disaster - I plan to add a review of it to the Willis existing piece. I was intrigued by the one book because it takes place in AK and includes some data on the famous pilot Don Sheldon, who was infamous for his flying expertise on the mountain (which is known in AK by its Native Alaskan name of Denali). The Willis book intrigued me because I thought it might help to understand just why men climb mountains - why they feel compelled to take such extreme risks over and over again. In more than a few ways the pilots I knew were like those mountain climbers, so any bit of insight helps me understand better what I'm trying to write about now.

Unfortunately, even after all of their research and interviews, Willis and Tabor really can't give a universal answer. I knew there wouldn't one thing - one genetic precursor - that urged people to climb. Willis covers a huge group of climbers in his book and some seem to be happy, some angry, a few running from their own demons. But why run in that particular direction? Why run to Everest or Annapurna or K2 or wherever instead of finding a way to make life work closer to home? Many of these men (an alarming number of whom died) had families - it was not like they are some subset of humanity that is destined to be heroically tragic loners. So why do some of us become consumed by passions of reading and writing, butterflies and dinosaur bones while others must climb to the top of the world, and then when they get there, do it again but by a far more difficult route?

What drives some people to create dangerous circumstances out of lives that have no danger?

In asking these kinds of questions about Alaskan pilots, especially the ones who flew in the 1920s and 1930s, I don't want to come across as too critical, but on the flip side the people that knew those men (several of whom died in aircraft crashes) had a tendency to lionize them in their writings. And the incorrect heroic view of their careers, and deaths, has lingered into the present day. When I was reading a recent book about the great scientist and explorer Sir Hubert Wilkins (a careful man who did not die young) it included mention of the death of Ben Eielson, a man Wilkins had flown with across the Arctic and over Antarctica. The author noted that Wilkins was not surprised to learn that Eielson died on a mercy mission - the same old story that has been written about the pilot since his crash in 1929.

And it just wasn't true then, and it's not true now but it's what people want to believe; it's what they need more than "he just flew away and died". Or in another case - "he just climbed that mountain because there was nothing better to do and he really hated that day job."

This is not to suggest that any of these men (climbers/pilots/explorers) were unqualified or approached their individual endeavors without some thought and care. But that still doesn't explain the why of it; why they thought it was something they should be doing in the first place.

Everyone always says it's not about being first or fastest or best. It always has to be for a greater purpose - to save a life, to map the world, or ultimately "For England!". (Or fill in your country of choice.) But I think it's something far smaller than all of that. It's just because they can really. It's 55 below zero and we have a charter request and there you are, and you know it will be hard and cold and a real pain in the ass but you can do it, right? Why not?

These are men who don't ask why. They only know how to ask "Why not".

Don't forget to check out the You Should Read This Awards and nominate any and all adult books you think are perfect for teen readers. Kelly Herold chimed in with a great post on The Brief Wonderous Life of Oscar Wao by Junot Diaz. I'm adding Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere as well.

[Post pic of Lawrence "Titus" Oates by artist Rik van Glintenkamp. He described Oates as "a tough man to figure out." That is why he presented him as a puzzle.]